Appeal No. 96-3833
ApplicationApplication 08/014,320
As for appellant’s remarks regarding the Bronnvall patent,
the insulating layer 3 in the embodiment of the patentee’s Figure
2 is part of the heating element itself as correctly pointed out
by the examiner. Contrary to the implication that might be drawn
from appellant’s arguments, Bronnvall’s insulating layer 3 is
obviously electrical installation, not thermal insulation.
In any case, as noted supra, one skilled in the art is not
compelled to blindly adopt every aspect of the prior art
teachings without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear
Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d at 889, 221 USPQ at
1032. Skill in the art is presumed, not the converse. In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743, 226 USPQ at 774.
Appellant’s additional arguments regarding the Bronnvall
patent as set forth on page 11 of the brief are also
unpersuasive. It is of no moment that Bronnvall lacks a teaching
of capturing the heating element between an attachment member and
a wiper blade, and it also is of no moment that Bronnvall lacks a
teaching of a support frame for the blade’s attachment member
because, VanSickle, not Bronnvall, is relied upon for a teaching
of these features. Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking the references individually without regard to what the
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007