Appeal No. 1996-2256
Application No. 08/104,866
(filed Aug. 13, 1992)
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Deneka in view of Hartlein and
Bilkadi.
We cannot sustain this rejection.
Deneka teaches adhering or bonding a glass fiber to a
surface of a glass component (e.g., see figures 7 and 8 of the
drawing and the specification disclosure relating thereto).
However, the Deneka reference contains no teaching or
suggestion of treating the aforementioned surface with a silane
adhesion promoter as required by the claims on appeal.
Concerning this deficiency, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious for one with an ordinary level of skill
in the art to treat Deneka’s component surface with silanes of
the type and for the reasons taught by Hartlein.
We cannot agree. As correctly pointed out by the
appellants, Hartlein teaches the use of silanes to improve the
bonding of siliceous surfaces, such as glass, to organic resins
(e.g., see the abstract and lines 58-65 in column 2). We
consider the record before us inadequate to establish that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007