Appeal No. 1998-1711 Page 12
Application No. 08/506,387
The obviousness rejections
The examiner's rejection of claims 9 and 10, which depend from claim 1, as being
unpatentable over Eustache rests in part on the examiner's position that Eustache discloses two
reservoirs as required by the claims. As we have concluded, as discussed above, that Eustache
discloses only one liquid reservoir, it follows that we also cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 9 and 10.
The examiner's rejection of claims 4-6 and 8, however, is based upon the combined teachings
of Eustache and Penkwitz. Penkwitz teaches that the practice of admixing an anti-freeze substance with
windshield washing fluid to lower the freezing point thereof often yields an unpleasant odor and, further,
is insufficient, particularly with very low outside temperatures, for preventing the washing fluid in the
reservoir from freezing (translation, page 3). In order to solve this problem, Penkwitz discloses
arranging the expansion tank for the engine-cooling system adjacent the windshield washing fluid
reservoir to help heat the windshield washing fluid, thereby preventing it from freezing in the winter and
enhancing the cleaning effect of the washing fluid in other seasons (translation, page 3). Penkwitz
discloses a first embodiment, depicted in Figure 1, in which the coolant expansion tank 1, provided with
a connection 22 for a compensator line leading to the radiator of the vehicle, is disposed next to the
windshield washing fluid reservoir 5. In a second embodiment, illustrated in Figure 2, the washing fluid
reservoir 6 is surrounded by an expansion tank 2 (translation, page 6). Penkwitz, on page 7 of the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007