Appeal No. 96-3833
ApplicationApplication 08/014,320
applied references collectively suggest. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981).
Admittedly, Bronnvall, like Kampe, does not mention a wiper
blade or expressly suggest the application of his PTC heating
element to heat a wiper blade. However, as noted 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 at 995, 217 USPQ at 6;
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d at 1025,
226 USPQ at 886. 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 modification required by
the claims. In re Lalu, 747 F.2d at 705, 223 USPQ at 1258.
In the present case, Bronnvall recognizes in column 1, lines
12-17, that the output of a PTC heating element is
advantageously self-regulating without the need of a separate
thermostatic control. Such a teaching alone would have been
ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute Bronnvall’s PTC heating element for VanSickle’s
thermostatically controlled heating element. Furthermore, as
noted supra, the advantages and disadvantages of a PTC heater and
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007