Appeal No. 1996-2256
Application No. 08/104,866
Hartlein’s disclosure of using silanes to improve the bond of
glass-to-resin would have suggested using silanes to improve
the bond of glass-to-glass in Deneka’s process. In re
O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-1681 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
In short, the fact that Deneka and Hartlein are
respectively directed to differing materials militates against
the examiner’s conclusion that the latter would have suggested
modifying the former in the manner proposed with a reasonable
expectation of success. For this reason, it is our ultimate
determination that the examiner has failed to carry his burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness on the record
before us. As a consequence, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of the appealed claims as being unpatentable
over Deneka in view of Hartlein and Bilkadi.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN D. SMITH )
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007