Appeal No. 95-4091
Application No. 08/106,742
Answer, page 3, relies upon and incorporates the rejection set
forth in the final rejection of September 7, 1994 (Paper No.
7). The examiner states therein, page 4, “[i]t is noted that
the property of transmittance depends on several material-
related (i.e., type of interlayer and thickness) and
operational parameters (i.e., the pressure used for deairing
and the vacuum, pressure and temperature used in bonding) in
the recited process which are well known in the art. For
example, the apparent 53%-72% transmittance shown by the Sato
et al reference is clearly dependent upon the temperature of
the laminate just before the pressure bonding step, See Table
I.” The examiner has restated his position in the Answer,
pages 6 and 7 that, “only the operating conditions (more
specifically, pressure and temperature) used during the
mating/lamination of the glass sheets with the plastic
interlayer will determine the percent light transmittance in
the resulting product.”
It is well settled that the initial burden of proof lies
with the examiner to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness under § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447-
48, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446-47 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The fact that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007