Appeal No. 2007-0358
Application 10/873,477
switch 14 with segments 15-18 operating in concert with solenoids 21-24 to
control the number of active spray nozzles. (Translation at 2-3 and Fig. 1.)
Giving appealed claim 1 its broadest reasonable interpretation, we determine
that the claim recitation “at least one dish rack” reads on the combination of
bottom surface 6 and dish holders 2-5 of DE ‘670. (See Applicants’
acknowledgment in the Amended Appeal Brief at 11.) We also find that nozzles 7-
10 of DE ‘670 are spaced apart at different locations (or “specific areas”) within
the dishwasher and are integrated with the bottom surface 6, which is a part of the
prior art dish rack. Further, we agree with the examiner that the claim recitation
“control mechanism associated with said spraying device for controlling said
specific areas” is broad enough to read on the switch/solenoid combination of DE
‘670.
Accordingly, we find that DE ‘670 expressly describes each and every
limitation of the invention recited in appealed claim 1. Indeed, Applicants do not
tell us what specific claim limitation of claim 1 is missing in DE ‘670. Instead,
they assert that DE ‘670 does not provide “any motivation to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify its jet arrangement...” (Amended Appeal Brief at 11.) The
issue of motivation, however, is not relevant to an anticipation rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013