Appeal No. 96-3833
ApplicationApplication 08/014,320
blade” because it is “cross-hatched differently.” In the first
place, none of the appealed claims is drafted in such a way to
exclude the formation of an “insulating layer” on the windshield-
engaging portion of the wiper blade, and the blade itself is not
recited in any of the appealed claims to be a one-piece structure
to distinguish from VanSickle’s two-piece blade.
Furthermore, the backing strip blade portion is not cross-
hatched in the manner usually indicative of insulation. In any
event, those of ordinary skill in the art would certainly have
recognized that to impose a thermal insulation between the
windshield-engaging portion of the wiper blade and the heater,
which is the fair implication of appellant’s argument, would be
counterproductive to the purpose of the heater, namely to heat
the wiper blade.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the examiner that
claim 32 distinguishes from VanSickle’s heated wiper blade
assembly only by reciting that the heating element has a pair of
spaced apart elongated conductive members and a PTC material
disposed between the conductive members.
We also agree with the following findings made by the
examiner with respect to the Kampe patent:
The patent to Kampe discloses an elongated,
flexible strip heating element (see [the sole] fig.)
that is comprised of a pair of parallel, elongated
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007