Appeal No. 1997-0218
Application No. 08/182,757
treatment improves adhesion of polymer to the substrate"
(Answer, p. 9), we agree with appellants that the evidence of
record fails to render "a corona discharge treatment of at
least about 20 watts/m /minute" obvious. Therefore, the2
rejection of claim 47 is reversed. See In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability).
C. Claim 44-46 and 49
Claims 44 and 45 are directed to a laminated glazing unit
as described above wherein at least one of the layers of
organofunctional silane is applied to only a portion of the
interface between the polyvinyl chloride film and the adjacent
glass sheet. Claim 46, which is dependent on claim 45, and
independent claim 49 are further directed to a laminated
glazing unit as described above wherein the level of adhesion
between the inboard glass sheet and the polyvinyl chloride
film is greater than the level of adhesion between the
outboard glass sheet and the polyvinyl chloride film.
According to Beckmann, "[l]aminated safety glasses of
controlled adhesion can be used, for example, in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007