Ex parte Holland

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 1997

08014320 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 1997)

Application for patent filed February 5, 1993.1
-1-
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte DEWEY T. HOLLAND
________________
Appeal No. 96-3833
Application 08/014,3201
________________
HEARD: June 11, 1997
________________
Before McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and COHEN
AND LYDDANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCANDLISH, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the examiner’s
rejection of claims 32 through 37 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
All of the other claims in the application have either been
canceled or have been withdrawn from consideration as being
directed to a non-elected invention.
Appeal No. 96-3833
Application 08/014,320
As is well known in the prior art, the electrical resistance of a2
PTC material increases to a high value upon heating the material to a critical
temperature, thereby correspondingly reducing the flow of electrical current
through the material to effectively turn off the heater. Heaters embodying
this type of material are typically referred to in the prior art as self-
regulating heaters because they eliminate the need for a thermostatic control.
As correctly pointed out by the examiner on page 3 of the answer,3
the copy of claims 32, 35, and 39 appended to appellant’s brief is incorrect.
We have not attached a copy of this reference to this decision4
because it was applied by the examiner in his examination of appellant’s
application and because it was cited by appellant in his specification.
-2-
Appellant’s invention relates to a wiper blade assembly
having a wiper blade (20) heated by a heating element (70).
According to appealed claim 32, the heating element comprises a
material (75) disposed between a pair of elongated conductive
members (72, 74) and possessing a positive temperature
coefficient of resistance (PTC).2
A copy of the appealed claims, as these claims appear in the
appendix to the examiner’s answer, is appended to this decision.3
In rejecting the appealed claims, the examiner relies upon
the following references:
Kampe 4,334,148 Jun. 8, 1982
VanSickle 4,603,451 Aug. 5, 1986
Bronnvall 4,629,869 Dec. 16, 1986
The following references are applied by this Board in
support of new grounds of rejection set forth infra pursuant to
the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b):
Waseleski, Jr. (Waseleski) 3,489,884 Dec. 28, 19664
Appeal No. 96-3833
Application 08/014,320
A copy of this reference also is not attached to this decision. 5
This reference was cited in the PTO Form 892 attached to the office action
dated April 24, 1995 (Paper No. 13).
-3-
Horsma et al. (Horsma) 4,543,474 Sep. 24, 19855
Claims 32 through 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over VanSickle in view of Kampe, and claims 35
through 37 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over VanSickle in view of Bronnvall.
With regard to the rejection of claims 32 through 34, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute
a PTC strip heating element as taught by Kampe for the thermo-
statically controlled resistance strip heating element in
VanSickle’s heated wiper blade assembly. With regard to the
rejection of claims 35 through 37 and 39, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to substitute an elongated
plate-shaped PTC strip heating element as taught by Bronnvall for
the thermostatically controlled resistance strip heating element
of VanSickle.
In arguing the patentability of claims 32 through 34 as a
group, appellant contends on page 6 of the brief that VanSickle
does not disclose a PTC type heater. Appellant further contends
on pages 6-8 of the brief that VanSickle teaches away from his
invention because the patentee’s element 34 is a “layer” (brief,
Appeal No. 96-3833
Application 08/014,320
-4-
page 7) inserted between the patentee’s heating element 40 and
the patentee’s wiper blade so that the patentee’s heating element
does not contact the wiper blade as required by claim 32.
Appellant further argues on page 9 of the brief that the
examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as set forth supra is based
on impermissible hindsight.
In arguing the patentability of claims 35 through 37 and 39
as a group, appellant contends on page 10 of the brief that the
examiner’s rejection of these claims is improper for the same
reasons as those set forth with regard to the rejection of claims
32 through 34. Appellant particularly emphasizes that the
examiner’s proposed combination of VanSickle and Bronnvall is
based on hindsight derived from appellant’s disclosure.
Reference is made to appellant’s brief for further details
of his arguments supporting patentability of the appealed claims
and to the examiner’s answer for further details of his
rejections. Inasmuch as appellant has not disputed the
examiner’s statement on page 2 of the answer that claims 32
through 34 stand or fall together and that claims 35 through 37
and 39 also stand or fall together, we will select a
representative claim from each of these two groups, with the
result that the remaining claims in each group shall stand or
fall with the representative claim. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) as
Appeal No. 96-3833
Application 08/014,320
-5-
amended effective April 21, 1995. See also In re Young, 927 F.2d
588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Wood,
582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978). In particular,
we will select claim 32 as the representative claim for the group
of claims 32 through 34 and claim 35 as the representative claim
for the group of claims 35 through 37 and 39.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments, including those outlined supra. As a result, we
conclude that the rejections of the appealed claims are
sustainable.
Considering first the rejection of claim 32, we agree with
the following findings made by the examiner with regard to the
VanSickle patent:
The patent to VanSickle discloses . . . a wiper
blade assembly (fig. 2) having an elongated wiper blade
(18) with first and second ends and an attachment
member (32) for engaging said blade to a support frame.
The attachment member is positioned over an upper
surface of said blade and captures an elongated heating
element (40) between itself and the blade. Said
heating element extends the length of the support (32)
and receives power from a power source (42) via
electrical leads or connectors (46). VanSickle also
discloses a temperature responsive means or control
means (54) to control the temperature of the heating
element.
The patent to VanSickle discloses all of the above
recited subject matter with the exception of the
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-6-
heating element having a pair of spaced apart elongated
conductive members extending parallel to the blade and
a PTC material disposed between said conductive
members. [Answer, page 4.]
We also agree the examiner’s following analysis of the
VanSickle patent:
It is not clear how or why Appellant considers 34 to be
an insulating member when VanSickle clearly states
[Column 3, 10-13] “The backing support 32 forms a
channel with inwardly extending projections 34 which
support and retain the wiper blade 18.”. There is no
“insulating” member 34, but rather a wiper blade 18,
which appears to have an upper stiffening portion or
layer, receiving projections 34 of the backing support
32. VanSickle clearly and unarguably sets forth that
the backing support engages the wiper blade.
In view of the above, Appellant’s arguments that
VanSickle teaches away from Appellant’s invention since
VanSickle teaches an insulating layer between the
heating element and the wiper blade are not persuasive.
No such layer is taught by VanSickle. While it is true
that the upper portion of wiper blade 18 of VanSickle
may be of a different material than the lower portion,
as illustrated by the different cross hatching (fig.
3), it is the portions together that make up or
constitute the wiper blade. This interpretation is
reinforced by VanSickle who states that the projections
34 support and retain the wiper blade. Just because
the upper portion of the blade is of a different
material than the lower portion does not mean it is not
part of the blade.
Contrary to appellant’s arguments spanning pages 6 through 8
of the brief, the VanSickle specification unequivocally describes
elements 34 as being the inwardly extending projections of the
wiper blade attachment member or backing support, as VanSickle
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-7-
calls it. See column 3, lines 10-13 of the VanSickle
specification. At the oral hearing, appellant’s counsel was
understood to agree with the examiner’s finding regarding
VanSickle’s elements 34.
It is evident that the backing strip lying between
VanSickle’s windshield-engaging blade portion and heating element
40 is part of blade 18 itself because, as the examiner noted, the
patentee’s specification states in column 3, lines 22-25, that
the “blade 18 would be secured to the supporting assembly 20 by
sliding the blade 18 through the channel formed by the
projections 34” (emphasis added). Since the only structure shown
to lie in the channel formed by projections 34 is this backing
strip, then the description that the blade 18 is in the channel
signifies that the backing strip must be part of the blade 18.
Furthermore, this strip portion of the blade is shown to lie in
contact with the attachment member 32. Based on these findings,
claim 32 does not distinguish from VanSickle by reciting that the
heating element is in physical contact with the blade and the
attachment member.
Also without merit is appellant’s argument on page 7 of the
brief that the backing strip portion of the blade must be an
insulating layer to “insulate the heating element from the wiper
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-8-
blade” because it is “cross-hatched differently.” In the first
place, none of the appealed claims is drafted in such a way to
exclude the formation of an “insulating layer” on the windshield-
engaging portion of the wiper blade, and the blade itself is not
recited in any of the appealed claims to be a one-piece structure
to distinguish from VanSickle’s two-piece blade.
Furthermore, the backing strip blade portion is not cross-
hatched in the manner usually indicative of insulation. In any
event, those of ordinary skill in the art would certainly have
recognized that to impose a thermal insulation between the
windshield-engaging portion of the wiper blade and the heater,
which is the fair implication of appellant’s argument, would be
counterproductive to the purpose of the heater, namely to heat
the wiper blade.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the examiner that
claim 32 distinguishes from VanSickle’s heated wiper blade
assembly only by reciting that the heating element has a pair of
spaced apart elongated conductive members and a PTC material
disposed between the conductive members.
We also agree with the following findings made by the
examiner with respect to the Kampe patent:
The patent to Kampe discloses an elongated,
flexible strip heating element (see [the sole] fig.)
that is comprised of a pair of parallel, elongated
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-9-
conductive members (12) with an elongated PTC material
disposed between and in contact with said conductive
members such that electrical power supplied to said
conductive members creates heat along the length of the
strip heater. Use of PTC material makes the heater
self-regulating. (Examiner’ Answer, page 5.]
Appellant does not appear to take issue with the examiner’s
findings as quoted supra. In fact, with the possible exception
of the insulation sleeve 16 on Kampe’s PTC heating element,
appellant does not argue that the patentee’s heating element
differs from the heating element recited in appealed claim 32.
Instead, as set forth on page 9 of the brief, appellant’s main
position is that Kampe does not mention or somehow suggest the
application of his PTC heating element to heat a wiper blade.
This argument must fail.
Contrary to the implications of appellant’s argument as
outlined supra, there is no requirement in the test for
obviousness under § 103 that the suggestion for making a
modification be expressly articulated in the prior art. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983);
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015,
1025, 226 USPQ 881, 886 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Instead, it is
sufficient that the prior art contain some teaching or suggestion
that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-10-
modification required by the claims. In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703,
705, 223 USPQ 1257, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In the present case, the Kampe patent teaches that the PTC
heating element is self-regulating in the sense that the
electrical resistance of the PTC material increases substantially
upon reaching a critical temperature to effectively turn off the
heating element. Self-regulating PTC heating elements are known
in the prior art to have the advantage over conventional heaters
of the type disclosed in the VanSickle patent in that they
eliminate the need for a separate thermostatic control.
Inasmuch as the advantages and disadvantages of a PTC
heating element and a heating element with a separate
thermostatic control are well known, the selection of one or the
other for a particular installation would have been merely a
matter of choice or engineering design. See In re Heinrich, 268
F.2d 753, 756, 122 USPQ 388, 390 (CCPA 1959). Certainly, the
elimination of the need for a separate thermostatic control would
have been ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art
to replace VanSickle’s thermostatically controlled heating
element with Kampe’s PTC heating element. It therefore would
have been obvious without recourse to appellant’s disclosure to
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-11-
substitute Kampe’s PTC heating element for VanSickle’s
thermostatically controlled heating element. Id.
We are not unmindful of appellant’s argument (see page 9 of
the brief) that Kampe teaches away from making the modification
needed to arrive at the claimed invention because Kampe discloses
an insulating layer 16 enveloping the electrodes and the PTC
material. This argument is also unpersuasive.
In the first place, claim 32 is not drafted in such a way
to exclude Kampe’s insulating layer 16 because it calls for the
heating element as “having” certain elements and therefore is
“open-ended” in the sense that the heating element may include
other elements not recited in the claim. Furthermore, contrary
to the apparent implication of appellant’s argument, Kampe’s
layer or sleeve 16 appears to be electrical insulation, not
thermal insulation inasmuch as enveloping the heater in thermal
insulation would be counterproductive to the basic purpose of the
heater, namely the supply heat to the surroundings.
In any case, one skilled in the art is not compelled to
blindly adopt every aspect of the prior art teachings without the
exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v.
Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-12-
1984). Skill in the art is presumed, not the converse. In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
We will therefore sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claim 32. We will also sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 33
and 34 since, as noted supra, claims 33 and 34 stand or fall with
claim 32.
With regard to the rejection of claims 35 through 37 and 39,
the examiner relies upon the Bronnvall patent for a suggestion of
a PTC heating element corresponding to appellant’s claimed
heating element to eliminate the need for a separate temperature
control. He makes that following undisputed findings regarding
this reference:
The patent to Bronnvall discloses an elongated,
flexible strip (cable) heating element (see fig. 2)
that is comprised of a pair of parallel, elongated,
flat conductive members (1) with an elongated PTC
material (4) disposed between and in contact with said
conductive members such that electrical power supplied
to said conductive members creates heat along the
length of the strip heater. Use of PTC material makes
the heater self-regulating. The patent to Bronnvall
also discloses the heating element including an outer
insulating layer (3).
In arguing the patentability of claims 35 though 37 and 39
as a group, appellant contends, inter alia, that Bronnvall does
not suggest the modification proposed by the examiner. Appellant
goes on to argue that even if the modification were suggested,
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-13-
[O]ne still would have a heating element which is not
in contact with the wiper blade. In addition to the
insulating layer 34 of VanSickle, which would separate
the Bronnvall device from the wiper blade 18 of
VanSickle, there is the additional insulating material
3 of Bronnvall preventing contact between the heating
element and the wiper blade. [Brief, page 12.]
Appellant’s arguments as quoted supra are unpersuasive.
Unlike claim 32, claim 35 does not require the heating element to
be in physical contact with the blade. Instead, this claim
merely recites the heating element is maintained between, and
hence, not necessarily in contact with, the blade and the
attachment member. As far as claim 35 is concerned, therefore,
the feature of contacting the blade with the heating element is
not claimed, and it is well established patent law that features
not claimed, such as the one discussed above, may not be relied
upon to support patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982) and In re Richards, 187 F.2d 643,
645, 89 USPQ 64, 66 (CCPA 1951).
In any event, VanSickle’s heating element does contact a
portion of the blade according to our findings concerning claim
32. Based on the foregoing findings, the only difference between
VanSickle and the subject matter of claim 35 resides in the
particular construction of the heating element as discussed
supra.
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-14-
As for appellant’s remarks regarding the Bronnvall patent,
the insulating layer 3 in the embodiment of the patentee’s Figure
2 is part of the heating element itself as correctly pointed out
by the examiner. Contrary to the implication that might be drawn
from appellant’s arguments, Bronnvall’s insulating layer 3 is
obviously electrical installation, not thermal insulation.
In any case, as noted supra, one skilled in the art is not
compelled to blindly adopt every aspect of the prior art
teachings without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear
Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d at 889, 221 USPQ at
1032. Skill in the art is presumed, not the converse. In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d at 743, 226 USPQ at 774.
Appellant’s additional arguments regarding the Bronnvall
patent as set forth on page 11 of the brief are also
unpersuasive. It is of no moment that Bronnvall lacks a teaching
of capturing the heating element between an attachment member and
a wiper blade, and it also is of no moment that Bronnvall lacks a
teaching of a support frame for the blade’s attachment member
because, VanSickle, not Bronnvall, is relied upon for a teaching
of these features. Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking the references individually without regard to what the
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-15-
applied references collectively suggest. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981).
Admittedly, Bronnvall, like Kampe, does not mention a wiper
blade or expressly suggest the application of his PTC heating
element to heat a wiper blade. However, as noted supra, there is
no requirement in the test for obviousness under § 103 that the
suggestion for making a modification be expressly articulated in
the prior art. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d at 995, 217 USPQ at 6;
Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d at 1025,
226 USPQ at 886. Instead, it is sufficient that the prior art
contain some teaching or suggestion that would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to make the modification required by
the claims. In re Lalu, 747 F.2d at 705, 223 USPQ at 1258.
In the present case, Bronnvall recognizes in column 1, lines
12-17, that the output of a PTC heating element is
advantageously self-regulating without the need of a separate
thermostatic control. Such a teaching alone would have been
ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute Bronnvall’s PTC heating element for VanSickle’s
thermostatically controlled heating element. Furthermore, as
noted supra, the advantages and disadvantages of a PTC heater and
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-16-
a heater with a separate thermostatic control are well known,
making the selection of one or the other for a particular
installation a matter of choice or engineering design. See In re
Heinrich, 268 F.2d at 756, 122 USPQ at 390.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claim 35. We will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 36, 37 and 39 since, as noted supra, these claims stand or
fall with claim 35.
In sustaining the examiner’s rejections of the appealed
claims, we are not mindful of appellant’s arguments regarding
long felt need as set forth on page 12 of the brief. However,
there is no evidence, such as a declaration or affidavit, to
support these arguments, and it is well settled that arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of evidence. In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
We also are not unmindful of a colored photograph found in
the file and depicting what appears to be a comparison between a
“factory original blade” and a “heated wiper blade.” However,
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-17-
there is no evidence establishing that the heated blade
incorporates appellant’s invention; nor is there any sworn
statement pertaining to any tests that may have been conducted.
In any case, any comparative testing must be done with the closet
prior art. In re DeBlauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
(Fed. Cir. 1984).
Under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.196(b), the following new
grounds of rejection are entered against the appealed claims:
Claims 32, 33, 35 through 37 and 39 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over VanSickle in view of
Bronnvall and Waseleski, and claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over VanSickle in view of Bronnvall,
Waseleski and Horsma.
Based on the findings set forth supra, the only difference
between the subject matter of the appealed claims and the
VanSickle patent resides in the claimed details of the heating
element for the wiper blade. However, according to our findings
set forth supra, Bronnvall teaches a PTC heating element
corresponding to the heating element recited in claims 32, 33, 35
through 37 and 39.
Furthermore, as pointed out supra, Bronnvall recognizes in
column 1, lines 12-17, that the output of a PTC heating element
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
Since appellant has not expressly stated that the plate-shaped6
heating element disclosed in his specification (see page 7 thereof) is prior
art, but only the plate-shaped heating element is “available through
Thermacon, Inc.” (specification, page 7), we have not relied upon the
Thermacon heating element in support of our rejection.
-18-
is advantageously self-regulating without the need of a separate
thermostatic control. Such a teaching alone would have been6
ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute Bronnvall’s PTC heating element for VanSickle’s
thermostatically controlled heating element. Additionally, as
also noted supra, the advantages and disadvantages of a PTC
heater and a heater with a separate thermostatic control, such as
VanSickle’s heater are well known, making the selection of one or
the other for a particular installation a matter of choice or
engineering design. See In re Heinrich, 268 F.2d at 756, 122 USPQ
at 390.
The Waseleski patent expressly teaches the provision of a
self-regulating PTC strip heating element 3 for heating a wiper
blade. This patent, it should be noted, is not relied upon for
teaching a PTC heating element corresponding to the claimed
details of appellant’s PTC heating element. Instead, this
reference is relied upon for its express suggestion of
eliminating the separate thermostatic control in a conventional
thermostatically controlled wiper blade heating element by
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-19-
utilizing a self-regulating PTC type heating element to heat the
wiper blade. See column 1, lines 35-39 and lines 45-54 of the
Waseleski specification. As such, Waseleski reinforces our
earlier determination that it would have obvious to substitute a
PTC strip heating element for VanSickle’s thermostatically
controlled strip heating element to eliminate the need for a
separate thermostatic control.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the combined
teachings of VanSickle, Bronnvall and Waseleski would have
suggested the subject matter of claims 32, 33, 35 through 37 and
37 to one of ordinary skill in the art to warrant a conclusion of
obviousness under the test set forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
425, 208 USPQ at 881.
With regard to claim 34, appellant has not disputed the
examiner’s finding that Bronnvall’s PTC strip heating element is
flexible. In any event, Horsma teaches the concept of making a
PTC strip heating element flexible so that the heating element is
capable of conforming to the contour of the structure to be
heated (see the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4 of the Horsma
specification). For these reasons it would have been obvious to
make the PTC heating element flexible. Horsma is also pertinent
for its teaching that PTC heating elements are self-regulating to
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-20-
eliminate the need for a separate thermostatic control (see, for
example, column 3, lines 12-15 of the Horsma specification).
In summary, the examiner’s decision rejecting appealed
claims 32 through 37 and 39 is affirmed, and new grounds of
rejection have been entered against the appealed claims under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-21-
Any request for reconsideration or modification of this
decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based
upon the same record must be filed within one month from the date
hereof. 37 CFR § 1.197.
With respect to the new rejections under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b), should appellant elect the alternate option under
that rule to prosecute further before the Primary Examiner by way
of amendment or showing of facts, or both, not previously of
record, a shortened statutory period for making such response is
hereby set to expire two months from the date of this decision.
In the event appellant elects this alternate option, in order to
preserve the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145
with respect to the affirmed rejection, the effective date of the
affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the prosecution before
the examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner and
this does not result in allowance of the application, abandonment
or a second appeal, this case should be returned to us for final
action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request
for reconsideration thereof.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-22-
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED - 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
WILLIAM E. LYDDANE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-23-
Roger Norman Coe
1722 Eastlake Drive West
Elkhart, IN 46514
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-1-
APPENDIX
32. A wiper blade assembly capable of being heated and operating
at a substantially constant temperature, said blade assembly
comprising:
an elongated wiper blade having an attachment member
connected thereto; and
an elongated heating element contacting said blade and
extending substantially parallel to said blade along the length
of said blade, said heating element having (a) a pair of spaced
apart, elongated conductive members extending parallel to and
substantially the length of said blade and (b) a material with a
positive temperature coefficient of resistance disposed between
and in electrical contact with said conductive members along the
length of said blade;
wherein said attachment member is positioned over an upper
surface of said blade and captures said heating element between
itself and said blade.
33. The wiper blade assembly of claim 32, which also includes
means for supplying electricity to said conductive members.
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-2-
34. The wiper blade assembly of claim 32, wherein the heating
element is flexible.
35. A wiper blade assembly comprising:
an elongated blade of predetermined length with first and
second ends and an attachment member for engaging said blade to a
support frame; and
an elongated heating element positioned substantially
parallel to said blade, the heating element having (a) first and
second spaced apart, elongated conductive members extending
parallel to and substantially the length of said blade and (b) a
material with a positive temperature coefficient of resistance
disposed between and in electrical contact with said conductive
members thereby providing substantially constant distribution of
heat along the length of said blade when heating said wiper
blade;
wherein said attachment member is positioned over an upper
surface of said blade and maintains said heating element between
itself and said blade.
36. The wiper blade assembly of claim 35, wherein the heating
element also includes first and second connectors, said first
connector being in electrical communication with said first
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-3-
conductive member and said second connector being in electrical
communication with said second conductive member, said connectors
projecting beyond an end of said blade.
37. The wiper blade assembly of claim 36, which also includes
means for supplying electricity to said electric connectors at an
end of said blade.
38. The wiper blade assembly of claim 35, wherein the heating
element is flexible.
39. A heated wiper blade comprising:
an elongated blade of predetermined length having means for
retaining said blade in a desired position;
an elongated heating element contacting said blade along the
length of said blade, said heating element having (a) a pair of
spaced apart, elongated conductive members extending parallel to
and substantially the length of said blade and (b) a material
with a positive temperature coefficient of resistance between
and in electrical contact with said conductive members; and
means for supplying electricity to said conductive members;
Application 08/014,320

Appeal No. 96-3833
-4-
wherein said heating element is maintained in contact with
the upper surface of said blade by said means for retaining said
heating element between itself and said blade.