Appeal No. 2007-0358
Application 10/873,477
soil condition sensed in a dishwasher, with the dishwasher of DE ‘670
which controls spray nozzle intensity based on the wash cycle desired
(i.e. “if very dirty dishes are to be cleaned...the intensity of the
spraying must be considerably increased”, page 3, lines 3-5 of the
Official translation) in order to control spray intensity in a dishwasher
based on the sensed turbidity to provide a more efficient cleaning
effect in a dishwasher.
For the reasons discussed below, we discern no reversible error in the
examiner’s rejections. Accordingly, we affirm both rejections.
Issues
Did Appellants identify any difference between the subject matter of
appealed claim 1 and the device described in DE ‘670?
Did Appellants demonstrate any error in the examiner’s combination of DE
‘670 and Cooper?
Findings of Fact
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. With respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9,
Applicants state that “claims 1-4 and 6-9 shall rise or fall with respect
to the patentability...of claim 1.” (Amended Appeal Brief at 10.)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013