Appeal No. 96-0317
Application 08/042,185
metallizing glass wherein metal is applied directly to hot glass, and then teaches that glass
can be shot blasted (page 118). Such shot blasting, Ballard teaches, prepares surfaces
for coatings (page 95). These teachings would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, shot blasting glass prior to metallizing the glass.
For the above reasons, we conclude, based on the preponderance of the evidence
and argument in the record, that the invention recited in appellants’ claims 1-7, 10, and 12-
17 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.2
Appellants argue that the applied references do not teach or suggest the
application of a metal layer or the further application to a solder layer to the surface of a
metal backing plate by any method, much less arc spraying as recited in claims 8, 9 and
18-20 (brief, pages 5-7). The examiner argues that appellants do not state why claims 8, 9
and 18-20 are patentably distinct by virtue of the limitations recited therein, and therefore
considers the claims to stand or fall together (answer, page 2). However, appellants’
argument is a substantive argument that the references do not disclose or suggest the
subject matter recited in those claims, and therefore should have been addressed by the
examiner. Since we do not find in the applied references a disclosure or suggestion to arc
spray a metal layer onto the metal surface to be bonded to the silicon-containing surface,
2A discussion of Leas is not necessary to our decision.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007