Appeal No. 96-3833
ApplicationApplication 08/014,320
conductive members (12) with an elongated PTC material
disposed between and in contact with said conductive
members such that electrical power supplied to said
conductive members creates heat along the length of the
strip heater. Use of PTC material makes the heater
self-regulating. (Examiner’ Answer, page 5.]
Appellant does not appear to take issue with the examiner’s
findings as quoted supra. In fact, with the possible exception
of the insulation sleeve 16 on Kampe’s PTC heating element,
appellant does not argue that the patentee’s heating element
differs from the heating element recited in appealed claim 32.
Instead, as set forth on page 9 of the brief, appellant’s main
position is that Kampe does not mention or somehow suggest the
application of his PTC heating element to heat a wiper blade.
This argument must fail.
Contrary to the implications of appellant’s argument as
outlined supra, there is no requirement in the test for
obviousness under § 103 that the suggestion for making a
modification be expressly articulated in the prior art. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015,
1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Instead, it is
sufficient that the prior art contain some teaching or suggestion
that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007