Appeal No. 1997-0689
Application No. 08/047,238
Additionally, the examiner has pointed to no teachings from
the prior art suggesting a desire for the ability to transmit
infrared radiation during one period and reflect, deflect, or
absorb infrared radiation during another
period, as required by claim 1. Therefore, we must reverse
the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 12, 23, 24, 26, and 27.
With respect to claims 14, 18, and 25, Gerritsen I,
Tietig, and Lueder do not cure the deficiencies in the
combination of
Zhang and Gerritsen II. Accordingly, we will reverse the
rejections of claims 14, 18, and 25.
CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the rejection of claim 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We have reversed the
rejection of claims 1, 12, 14, 18, and 23 through 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. As a result, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007