Appeal No. 1998-1795
Application No. 08/485,682
power delivery system to the motor. Therefore, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 7 by Riester.
With respect to claim 10, we do not sustain its
anticipation rejection for the same rationale as claim 3
above.
Claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Riester and
Resch
Regarding claim 8, we find, as above, that Riester in the
intermittent mode (fig. 2) includes a parking system in which
the power is made available in the operating region (contact
56 touching terminal 60 and capacitor 92 charged to the
critical voltage), and the power is terminated when contact 56
is touching terminal 58 and capacitor 92 is discharged.
Furthermore, we find the windshield wiper system of Riester
runs the motor 14 from power coming from capacitor 92 in the
intermittent parking mode, and in the continuous mode (fig.
4), the power to run motor 14 comes from terminal 102 (a
source other than capacitor 92 which supplies power in the
parking mode). Thus, Riester alone meets the recited
limitations of claim 8, and the use of Resch in this rejection
is merely cumulative. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 8 over Riester and Resch.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007