Ex Parte Fonville et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 31, 200910867584 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte CARL E. FONVILLE and MICHAEL A. KARRAM __________ Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Decided: August 31, 2009 ___________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and PETER F. KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 over Franco.1 Claims 13-16 are also pending but have been withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The subject matter on appeal is directed to a vehicle windshield washing and wiper de-icing system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative. 1. A vehicle windshield washing and wiper de-icing system for a windshield, the system comprising: a wiper assembly configured to move a windshield wiper across the windshield from a first position through a wiping motion back to the first position; a first nozzle integrated into the wiper assembly and configured to deliver washing fluid directed to at least a portion of the windshield before or during the wiping motion; and a second nozzle positioned apart from the wiper assembly and configured to deliver washing fluid directed to a surface of the windshield wiper while in the first position, to remove ice therefrom. Br. 14, Claims Appendix.2 B. ISSUE Have the Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion that a system comprising a first nozzle and a second nozzle, configured as recited in claim 1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings in Franco? C. FINDINGS OF FACT Franco discloses an apparatus for cleaning or de-icing a vehicle window. Franco 1:6-7. 1 US 6,164,564 to Franco issued December 26, 2000. 2 Appeal Brief dated April 15, 2008. 2 Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 In a first embodiment, spray heads or nozzles 32 are disposed on the vehicle and apply fluid to the windshield. See, e.g., Franco 7:30-34, Fig. 1. Franco discloses that the wipers go on only during and shortly after the fluid is discharged. Franco 8:44-47. Franco Figures 11A-11F illustrate a typical operating sequence in accordance with a preferred embodiment of the invention. Franco 15:50-53. Franco Figure 11A, reproduced below, illustrates a step in the operating sequence. Franco Figure 11A depicts a step in the operating sequence. In Figure 11A, wipers 402 and 404 are in the winter parking mode and are positioned in a non-horizontal position. The outlets of spray head 360 spray fluid at zones 430 and 432 to start melting ice accumulated on the windshield. Franco 15:57-61. Franco Figure 11C, reproduced below, illustrates another step in the operating sequence. 3 Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 Franco Figure 11C depicts a step in the operating sequence. In Figure 11C, the outlets of spray head 360 continue to spray fluid at zones 430 and 432. By this time, the fluid has melted some of the ice. The motor now succeeds in swinging the wipers both in clockwise and counterclockwise directions. Franco 16:6-11. In Figure 11D, spray head 360 continues to spray fluid, and the motor continues to operate the wipers. Franco 16:15-21. In a second embodiment, the wipers include outlet holes 464 for applying fluid on a windshield. See, e.g., Franco 14:37-40, 16:57-63, Figs. 9, 13. D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW During patent examination, the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. 4 Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 13 (1966). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. E. ANALYSIS The Examiner found that Franco discloses two embodiments of an apparatus for cleaning or de-icing windows. In one embodiment a plurality of nozzles 360 are located on the body of a vehicle. In another embodiment nozzles are located on the wipers. Ans. 3.3 The Examiner found that Franco does not disclose an embodiment comprising nozzles on the body of the vehicle and nozzles on the wipers. Ans. 4. However, the Examiner explained: Considering both embodiments are known, the examiner believes that combining them would lead to an obvious benefit or expected result of a more thorough cleaning or deicing due to the fact that more fluid can be ejected onto the window and wipers from a variety of angles. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify Franco, and include nozzles on the body of the vehicle together with nozzles on the wiper, in order to achieve a more thorough cleaning or deicing. Ans. 4-5. The Appellants argue: The structural placement and positioning of the nozzles as claimed are intended not to simply provide more fluid to the window from a variety of angles, but to provide de-icing functionality to the window while simultaneously providing deicing functionality to the window wiper. 3 Examiner’s Answer dated July 2, 2008. 5 Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 Br. 10. In this regard, the Appellants point out that claim 1 recites a first nozzle integrated into the wiper assembly and configured to deliver fluid directed to a portion of the windshield before or during the wiping motion and a second nozzle positioned apart from the wiper assembly and configured to deliver fluid directed to a surface of the windshield wiper while in a “first position.” Br. 10. The Appellants argue that Franco does not suggest a first and second nozzle as recited in claim 1. Br. 11. The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As for the first nozzle, Franco teaches that outlet holes or nozzles 464 are integrated into the wiper assembly and are configured to deliver fluid to a portion of a windshield before or during the wiping motion. See, e.g., Franco 14:37-40, Fig. 9. Thus, we find that Franco discloses a first nozzle as recited in claim 1. As for the second nozzle, the Examiner explains: [T]he appellant’s claims are deficient in defining said “first position”. Examiner believes that any position the wiper travels through can be considered a “first position”, as the wiper will return to it at some point during its movement cycle. Considering the nozzles 360 direct fluid towards the windshield, they direct it towards the moving wiper as well. At some point during its cycle, the wiper will move through the stream of fluid from nozzles 360. Examiner finds that the position the wiper is at as it passes through the stream of fluid is readable on a “first position”. Ans. 5. The Examiner’s position is reasonable based on the record before us. Claim 1 recites that the wiper assembly is “configured to move a windshield 6 Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 wiper across the windshield from a first position through a wiping motion back to the first position.” Br. 14, Claims Appendix. We agree with the Examiner that the term “first position” as recited in claim 1 is broad enough to encompass any position of the wiper during the wiping motion since the wiper returns to that position through a wiping motion. See Ans. 5. Turning to the teachings of Franco, Figure 11C shows that spray head 360 delivers fluid to spray zone 430 while the wipers move back and forth within that spray zone. See Franco 16:6-11. We find that spray head 360 not only directs fluid to the windshield in spray zone 430 but also directs fluid to a surface of the wipers as they move back and forth within spray zone 430. The position of a wiper as it passes through the fluid is a “first position” within the scope of claim 1 because the wiper returns to that position through a wiping motion. For the reasons set forth above, we find that Franco teaches that spray head 360 is configured to deliver fluid directed to a surface of a wiper while in a first position as recited in claim 1. Significantly, the Appellants have failed to direct us to any evidence to the contrary. As for combining the two embodiments of Franco, the Examiner’s analysis is reasonable based on the record before us. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“the motivation in the prior art to combine the references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness”). F. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. 7 Appeal 2009-002422 Application 10/867,584 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED ssl CHRISTOPHER DEVRIES GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION LEGAL STAFF, MAIL CODE 482-C23-B21 P.O. BOX 300 DETROIT, MI 48265-3000 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation