Appeal No. 2007-0358
Application 10/873,477
turbidity sensor of [Cooper],” they do not assert that the modification of DE ‘670
dishwasher to include a turbidity sensor to automate the activation/deactivation of
the spray nozzles would require more than merely common knowledge and/or
ordinary skill in the art. (Amended appeal brief at 13-14.) Instead, they urge that
the applied prior art references do not teach “how the two different arrangements
of these two references should be combined with one another.” (Amended Appeal
Brief at 13.)
We see no merit in Applicants’ stated position. The examiner cited Cooper
to show that a turbidity sensor may be used to monitor the degree of soiling of
dishes, which is the same condition that is monitored in DE ‘670 to manually
activate/deactivate the solenoids. Given this teaching and the knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art, we determine that the combination of DE ‘670 and Cooper
would have suggested the use of a turbidity sensor to automate the
activation/deactivation of the solenoids in DE ‘670. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether
the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.”).
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013