Appeal 2006-2709
Application 10/254,295
Tomingas teaches that using sponges or chamois as in the prior art to dry
surfaces is time consuming and requires repeated strokes in comparison to
the single stroke required of the wiper blade taught by Tomingas (Tomingas;
col. 1, ll. 5-25). “The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
In further regard to this matter, Appellant asserts that the alleged blunt
sponge-like apparatus of Tomingas would not force wax particles into the
vehicle surface crevices and pores (Br. 8). This argument is not persuasive
for reasons articulated by the Examiner (Answer 11-13). We only add that
Appellant has not substantiated this argument with any evidence, much less
persuasive and compelling evidence establishing unexpected or unpredict-
able results for the claimed method over that expected by an artisan of
ordinary skill from the applied prior art teachings.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yeiser in view of Tomingas is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
cam
Central Coast Patent Agency, Inc.
3 Hangar Way Suite D
Watsonville, CA 95076
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013