Appeal No. 96-3833
Application 08/014,320
page 7) inserted between the patentee’s heating element 40 and
the patentee’s wiper blade so that the patentee’s heating element
does not contact the wiper blade as required by claim 32.
Appellant further argues on page 9 of the brief that the
examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as set forth supra is based
on impermissible hindsight.
In arguing the patentability of claims 35 through 37 and 39
as a group, appellant contends on page 10 of the brief that the
examiner’s rejection of these claims is improper for the same
reasons as those set forth with regard to the rejection of claims
32 through 34. Appellant particularly emphasizes that the
examiner’s proposed combination of VanSickle and Bronnvall is
based on hindsight derived from appellant’s disclosure.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief for further details
of his arguments supporting patentability of the appealed claims
and to the examiner’s answer for further details of his
rejections. Inasmuch as appellant has not disputed the
examiner’s statement on page 2 of the answer that claims 32
through 34 stand or fall together and that claims 35 through 37
and 39 also stand or fall together, we will select a
representative claim from each of these two groups, with the
result that the remaining claims in each group shall stand or
fall with the representative claim. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007