Appeal No. 1999-2242
Application No. 08/137,056
Finally, the appellant argues (main brief, p. 6) that
Yasukawa’s method for making the wiper blade requires the
simultaneous cure of two separate and different EPDM mixtures.
We disagree. The disclosed examples and preferred embodiments
set forth in Yasukawa do not constitute the entire disclosure
of the reference. As previously indicated, supra, Yasukawa
also teaches that the elastomer present in the dispersion
liquid may be any elastomer having the ability to be bonded to
the starting article. Further, the presence of EPDM in the
layer 51, which layer also includes more than 50% by volume of
PTFE, does not distinguish the PTFE coating on the surface of
the appellant’s wiper blade portion from the layer 51 on the
blade portion of Yasukawa’s windshield wiper. Claim 12 calls
for “a transferable
overcoat of polytetrafluoroethylene.” The language is open-
ended and includes within its scope overcoats of PTFE and
other components, e.g., EPDM.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of
claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Since claim 11 stands or
falls with claim 14, supra, we will also sustain the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007