Appeal No. 1997-0218
Application No. 08/182,757
B. Claim 47
Claim 47 is directed to a laminated glazing unit
comprising a plasticized polyvinyl chloride film disposed
between two glass sheets wherein the polyvinyl chloride film
has been subjected to a corona discharge treatment of at least
about 20 watts/m /minute. A layer of an organofunctional2
silane is further disposed on either side of the polyvinyl
chloride film and acts as an adhesion promoter between the
film and the glass sheets.
According to appellants (Brief, p. 11):
Applicants have been unable to find any
discussion of corona discharge treatment in any of
the references. Until the third and final action,
the Examiner had not specifically indicated the
nature of the rejection of claim 47. In the action
finally rejecting claim 47, the Examiner indicated
only that "it is well known in the polymer art that
the corona, flame, chemical, etc. treatment improves
adhesion of polymer to the substrate." The Examiner
has not offered any evidence to support this
conclusion. Even if supported, however, such a
broad statement would not teach one skilled in the
art to subject a PVC containing interlayer of a
glass laminate to a corona discharge treatment of at
least about 20 watts/m /minute, as defined in claim2
47.
To the extent that the examiner was correct in his
statement that "[r]egarding corona treatment, it is well known
in the polymer art that the corona, flame, chemical, etc.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007