Appeal No. 96-3833
ApplicationApplication 08/014,320
there is no evidence establishing that the heated blade
incorporates appellant’s invention; nor is there any sworn
statement pertaining to any tests that may have been conducted.
In any case, any comparative testing must be done with the closet
prior art. In re DeBlauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.196(b), the following new
grounds of rejection are entered against the appealed claims:
Claims 32, 33, 35 through 37 and 39 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over VanSickle in view of
Bronnvall and Waseleski, and claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over VanSickle in view of Bronnvall,
Waseleski and Horsma.
Based on the findings set forth supra, the only difference
between the subject matter of the appealed claims and the
VanSickle patent resides in the claimed details of the heating
element for the wiper blade. However, according to our findings
set forth supra, Bronnvall teaches a PTC heating element
corresponding to the heating element recited in claims 32, 33, 35
through 37 and 39.
Furthermore, as pointed out supra, Bronnvall recognizes in
column 1, lines 12-17, that the output of a PTC heating element
-17-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007