Appeal No. 1999-2242
Application No. 08/137,056
F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-293 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Our
review of the record reveals that the appellant has not
advanced any objective evidence or compelling line of
reasoning which establishes that there is a meaningful
difference.
The only argument specifically directed to the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 rejection of claims 11 and 14 is found at page 6 of the
main brief, namely, that the appellant’s windshield wiper is
made by a one step molding of a heat curable rubber mixture
which has
been surface treated prior to cure with a “transient release
agent” and does not require a subsequent integral press3
forming step to form the wiper.
Frankly, we are not certain what the appellant means by
the language “one step molding” or how this language
distinguishes the appellant’s windshield wiper from the
windshield wiper taught by Yasukawa. We remind the appellant
that appealed claim 14 is directed to a windshield wiper,
3The reply brief (p. 2) clarifies that the “transient
release agent” referred to in the main brief is the TEFLON or
PTFE overcoat.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007