Ex parte POTIN et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-3153                                                        
          Application 08/443,389                                                      


          integrated with an electronic chip for demodulating an ultra-               
          high frequency signal.  The antenna and chip are disposed                   
          between at least two glass sheets.                                          
          Representative claim 10 is reproduced as follows:                           
               10. A pane for a vehicle, comprising:                                  
               at least two glass sheets separated by an intermediate                 
          layer;                                                                      
               an electronic chip disposed between said at least two                  
          glass sheets for at least one of demodulating and processing                
          an ultra high frequency signal.                                             
          The examiner relies on the following references:                            
          Shaw, Jr. (Shaw)              3,414,902          Dec. 03, 1968              
          Wen et al. (Wen)              5,115,245          May  19, 1992              
          Hahs, Jr. et al. (Hahs)       5,235,736          Aug. 17, 1993              
          (filed June 15,                                                             
          1992)                                                                       
          Sakurai et al. (Sakurai)      3,834,075          Apr. 20, 1989              
          (German patent)                                                             
          Fumitaka et al. (Fumitaka)    4-323905           Nov. 13, 1992              
          (Japanese patent abstract only)                                             
          The following rejections are set forth by the examiner:                     
          1. Claims 2, 3, 8, 10-14, 16-19, 21 and 23-29 stand                         
          rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the               
          teachings of Fumitaka in view of Hahs and further in view of                
          Shaw.                                                                       

                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007