Appeal No. 96-3833
Application 08/014,320
amended effective April 21, 1995. See also In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Wood,
582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). In particular,
we will select claim 32 as the representative claim for the group
of claims 32 through 34 and claim 35 as the representative claim
for the group of claims 35 through 37 and 39.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments, including those outlined supra. As a result, we
conclude that the rejections of the appealed claims are
sustainable.
Considering first the rejection of claim 32, we agree with
the following findings made by the examiner with regard to the
VanSickle patent:
The patent to VanSickle discloses . . . a wiper
blade assembly (fig. 2) having an elongated wiper blade
(18) with first and second ends and an attachment
member (32) for engaging said blade to a support frame.
The attachment member is positioned over an upper
surface of said blade and captures an elongated heating
element (40) between itself and the blade. Said
heating element extends the length of the support (32)
and receives power from a power source (42) via
electrical leads or connectors (46). VanSickle also
discloses a temperature responsive means or control
means (54) to control the temperature of the heating
element.
The patent to VanSickle discloses all of the above
recited subject matter with the exception of the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007