Appeal No. 1998-0607 Page 14
Application No. 08/506,857
or "parked" at the lower limit of the wipe pattern, along a respective hood line 20, where it
will be masked and covered by a respective fairing, thereby providing both an aesthetic and
aerodynamic advantage (column 3, line 37, to column 4, line 4).
While it may be true that Charles would have suggested modifying Eustache so as to
provide a raked windshield as taught by Charles to reduce drag and provide slotted mirror
housings overhanging the side edge of the windshield to mask and cover the wiper arms, we
fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in the applied references which would
have motivated an artisan to provide the mirror housings so as to be carried on one or more of
the modules (100, 200) of Eustache, as opposed to, for example, the tops of the front fenders
adjacent the hood line. We appreciate Charles' disclosure of the relative proximity of the wiper
arms and the mirror housings, but such an arrangement in no way requires that the mirror
housings be carried on the wiping means module 200 or on a module adapted for assembly
with the wiping means module and recipient or reservoir module 100. From our perspective,
the only suggestion for putting the selected pieces from the references together in the manner
proposed by the examiner is found in the luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed
the appellants' disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a rejection. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, we shall not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1, or claims 2 and 3
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Eustache in view of Charles.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007