Ex Parte Fonville et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 31, 2009

10867584 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 31, 2009)

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over Franco.1 Claims 13-16 are also pending but have been withdrawn from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