Appeal No. 1998-1795
Application No. 08/485,682
wiper systems utilize relays (col. 1, lines 10 to 14),
however, Riester does not anticipate the claimed limitation.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 3 by Riester.
Regarding claims 4 and 5 (note that claim 5 has not been
argued separately), we find that, in the intermittent mode,
when contact 56 reaches terminal 58, and capacitor 92 has been
fully discharged, the wiper is in the parked state. The wiper
will stay parked until contact is moved by the rotating motor
shaft to touch terminal 60. The rate of rotation of the motor
shaft is indirectly determined by the timing circuit 110 since
power to the motor is provided only when the capacitor 92 is
charged to the critical voltage as discussed above. Thus,
after a delay determined in part by the timing circuit 110,
the wiper is driven out of the parking state. Therefore, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 4 and 5 by
Riester.
With respect to claim 6, we sustain its anticipation
rejection for the same rational as claims 1 and 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, we do not find, and neither has the
Examiner found, the claimed “RUN signal” and the “RESUME
signal” generated by Riester and their interaction with the
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007