Appeal No. 1998-1795
Application No. 08/485,682
whether, in the context of the whole claim-recitation, the
metes and bounds of the claim are clear and definite. Here,
we conclude that they are. Similar remarks apply to the other
shortcomings the Examiner has alleged regarding claims 7 to
10. The explanation and comments made by Appellant in the
brief and the reply brief are self-explanatory and are further
elaborated in the specification as pointed out therein by
Appellant. (We note in passing that at places, Appellant’s
page references to the specification are incorrect; see, for
example, that the reference to the “specification, page 9...,”
[reply brief, page 4] is misplaced, it should instead be pages
7 and 8.) Otherwise, we agree with the Appellant’s position.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 to 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1 to 7 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Riester
We first consider claim 1. We are persuaded by
Appellant’s argument [reply brief, pages 5 to 8] that element
54 of Riester is actuated by the rotation of the shaft of the
motor 14, and not by the timing circuit 110 as alleged by the
Examiner [answer, page 5]. However, if we consider the wiper
system of Riester in the intermittent mode, fig. 2, we find
that Riester is in a parking state when element 56 makes
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007