Appeal No. 1998-1795
Application No. 08/485,682
intermittent or a continuously running function. Thus, in our
interpretation of the applied prior art, we approach it from
the latter view point. This will further become clear as we
discuss the various rejections below.
Claims 7 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
After our review of the Examiner’s position [answer,
pages 3, 4, 7 and 8] and Appellant’s arguments [brief, pages 3
22 to 27 and reply brief, pages 1 to 5], we are of the opinion
that the Examiner is being over-zealous in the application of
35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph. For example, whereas the fact that
“the motor” (claim 7) lacks proper antecedent basis is
correct, the scope of the claim is clear and its bounds
definite, since there is only one motor involved in the claim
and, furthermore, the very existence of a windshield wiper
system requires a motor to be included in the system. As we
pointed out above, the primary concern an Examiner should have
in applying section 112, second paragraph to the claims is
3Even though the amendment after the final rejection
[paper no. 11] has not been approved for entry by the
Examiner, its entry may enhance the clarity of the pertinent
claims. However, we will leave that for the Examiner’s
discretion.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007