Appeal No. 1996-2388
Application No. 08/147,485
various combinations of Kropielnicki with the Roberts,
Altmayer, and Sato references, which had not been persuasively
rebutted by any convincing arguments of Appellant. In
particular, we found that the Examiner’s line of reasoning
established proper motivation to the skilled artisan to attach
a window pane to a vehicle frame, in the language of appealed
claim 1, “via a conductive adhesive layer.” Appellant now
argues (Request, page 1):
“[N]either the examiner nor the board has put
forward a credible motivation for the use of
such a layer in Kropielnicki et al, except
with the use of hindsight.”
We have reconsidered our decision of March 8, 2000 in
light of Appellant’s comments in the Request for Rehearing,
and we find no error therein. We, therefore, decline to make
any changes in our prior decision for the reasons which
follow.
Appellant’s primary point of contention is apparently
that because Kropielnicki suggests alternative ways of
attaching the glass pane to the vehicle frame, i.e., contact
or capacitive non-contact, a high quality contact connection,
if a contact connection is chosen, is not considered to be
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007