Appeal No. 1999-2242
Application No. 08/137,056
i.e., a product, not to a process of making a windshield
wiper. Thus, even if differences do exist between the process
recited in appealed claim 12 and the prior art process, it
does not necessarily follow that differences exist between a
product made by the process of appealed claim 12 and a product
made by the prior art process.
The arguments presented in the main brief beginning on
page 5 and continuing to page 6, line 13, are not directed to
any
particular claim or rejection, but to the extent that they
apply to the § 102(b) rejection of claims 11 and 14, the
arguments are not persuasive.
The appellant first argues (main brief, p. 5) that there
is no teaching in the cited references of a permanent TEFLON
(PTFE) coating on the inside surface of the windshield wiper
mold. We acknowledge, as does the examiner (see answer, p.
6), that Yasukawa does not teach a permanent PTFE coating on
the inside surface of the windshield wiper mold illustrated in
Figure 2. However, claim 14 is directed to a windshield
wiper, not to a process of making a windshield wiper or to a
mold used in such a process. Thus, even if differences do
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007