Ex Parte Fonville et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2014

12611079 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CARL E. FONVILLE
and MICHAEL A. KARRAM
____________________

Appeal 2012-011201
Application 12/611,079
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH,
and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1 through 3, 5 through 11, 13 through 17, 19 and
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2012-011201
Application 12/611,079

2
The claims are directed to a method and system for washing-wiping
windshields and de-icing wipers. App. Br. 3-5. Claim 1 illustrates the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method for washing-wiping of a windshield and de-icing of a
wiper in a vehicle in response to a request, wherein the vehicle has a pump
for selectively delivering a washing fluid to a primary nozzle configured to
spray the washing fluid on the windshield and a secondary nozzle configured
to spray the washing fluid on the wiper, the method comprising:
starting the pump, and
determining whether an outside air temperature T outside the vehicle
is greater than a predetermined value Tc;
and if T > Tc:
running the wiper in a wash mode while the pump continues to
run,
delivering the washing fluid to the primary nozzle while the
pump continues to run, and
stopping the pump when the request ends;
else if T < Tc, then:
running the wiper in a de-icing mode while the pump continues
to run,
determining whether the wiper is moving, and
if the wiper is not moving, delivering the washing fluid to
the secondary nozzle while the pump continues to run; or
if the wiper is moving, not delivering the washing fluid to
the secondary nozzle; and
stopping the pump when the request ends.

The Examiner relied on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Green US 2,280,400 Apr. 21, 1942
Lawson US 5,811,950 Sep. 22, 1998
Franco et al. US 6,164,564 Dec. 26, 2000
Piccione US 6,236,019 B1 May 22, 2001

Appeal 2012-011201
Application 12/611,079

3
Appellants, Appeal Brief 5, request review of the following rejections
from the Examiner’s Final Office action:
I. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Franco and Green.
II. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 16 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Franco, Green and Lawson.
III. Claims 6, 8, 14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Franco, Green and Piccione.
OPINION
The dispositive issue for this appeal is: Did the Examiner err in
determining that the combined teachings of Franco and Green would have
led one skilled in the art to a washing-wiping windshield system and method
of washing-wiping a windshield that switch between a first nozzle
configured to spray washing fluid on a windshield and a second nozzle
configured to spray washing fluid on the wiper as required by the subject
matter of independent claims 1, 9 and 15?1, 2
We answer the question in the positive and REVERSE for the reasons
presented by Appellants.
The Examiner found that Franco discloses a method of wiping a
windshield and deicing a windshield by either delivering deicing fluid from
nozzles on the vehicle or through the wiper. Ans. 2-3; Franco Figures 1, 9,
14. The Examiner found that it would have been obvious to combine

1 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
2 A discussion of Lawson and Piccione, relied upon by the Examiner in the
separate rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (Ans. 4-6), is unnecessary for disposition of the present
appeal. The Examiner relied upon these references for features not related to
the dispositive issue.
Appeal 2012-011201
Application 12/611,079

4
Franco’s disclosed embodiments to have two sets of nozzles because they
were known. Ans. 3. The Examiner further found that Franco does not
explicitly disclose the use of a temperature sensor to determine whether to
run the system in a cleaning mode or a deicing mode. Id. The Examiner
found that Franco discloses the use of a temperature sensor to monitor the
outside temperature to determine whether to place the windshield wipers in
summer or winter mode. Ans. 3; Franco col. 14, l. 66-col. 15, l. 6. The
Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to use this temperature sensor to determine whether to run the
washing fluid in wash or de-icing modes for ease of operation. Ans. 3. The
Examiner further found that Franco does not explicitly disclose determining
whether the wiper is moving in order to either deliver washing fluid to the
secondary nozzle (if wiper not moving) or not delivering washing fluid to
the secondary nozzle (if wiper moving). Ans. 3. The Examiner found that
Green discloses a method of deicing a motor vehicle windshield where the
wiper movement is detected and, if no movement is detected, then anti-
freezing solution is supplied through a channel in the wiper blade in order to
melt the ice. Ans. 3-4, Green Figure 9, p.1, 2nd col., ll. 35-47. The
Examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the method disclosed by Franco with the ice detection
method disclosed by Green to activate a secondary nozzle if there is no
wiper movement to readily detect and/or remove ice that is relatively simple
and cheap to manufacture. Ans. 4; Green page 1, 1st col., ll. 1-15.
Appellants argue that there is no disclosure in the cited art of a
method for switching between a first nozzle configured to spray washing
fluid on a windshield and a second nozzle configured to spray washing fluid
Appeal 2012-011201
Application 12/611,079

5
on the wiper based on determinations as to an outside air temperature and a
movement of the wiper as claimed. App. Br. 6.
We agree with Appellants. While it may have been obvious to a
skilled artisan to use first and second nozzles to wash windshields, as
reasoned by the Examiner (Ans. 2-3), the Examiner does not identify a
portion of the cited art that discloses how to selectively operate first and
second nozzles or a system for doing the same as claimed. The Examiner
has not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would operate one
nozzle to provide washing fluid to the windshield and another just to provide
washing fluid on the wiper based on external temperature and lack of
movement of the wiper.
“Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with
approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). On
this record, we find that the Examiner has not provided the requisite
articulated reasoning to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims
1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 for the reasons presented by the Appellants and
given above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and
20 are reversed.
REVERSED
lp