Appeal No. 96-3833
ApplicationApplication 08/014,320
[O]ne still would have a heating element which is not
in contact with the wiper blade. In addition to the
insulating layer 34 of VanSickle, which would separate
the Bronnvall device from the wiper blade 18 of
VanSickle, there is the additional insulating material
3 of Bronnvall preventing contact between the heating
element and the wiper blade. [Brief, page 12.]
Appellant’s arguments as quoted supra are unpersuasive.
Unlike claim 32, claim 35 does not require the heating element to
be in physical contact with the blade. Instead, this claim
merely recites the heating element is maintained between, and
hence, not necessarily in contact with, the blade and the
attachment member. As far as claim 35 is concerned, therefore,
the feature of contacting the blade with the heating element is
not claimed, and it is well established patent law that features
not claimed, such as the one discussed above, may not be relied
upon to support patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187 F.2d 643,
645, 89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
In any event, VanSickle’s heating element does contact a
portion of the blade according to our findings concerning claim
32. Based on the foregoing findings, the only difference between
VanSickle and the subject matter of claim 35 resides in the
particular construction of the heating element as discussed
supra.
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007