Appeal No. 1997-3302
Application No. 08/152,338
Answer at page 5, lines 1 through 6.
We find the examiner's theory of rejection to be
problematical for a number of reasons. First, as appellants
point out in their brief, particularly at page 4, the
Defendini patent describes a method for preparing
electrochromic glazings, i.e., coated glass laminate
structures, which are used in motor vehicles, particularly as
sun roofs. See column 1, lines 12 through 19, of this patent.
Hence, Defendini is not concerned with "transparent"
substrates in general, but to a method for forming glass
laminate structures. There is no evidence of record that the
support sheets of electrochromic glazings, useful
as sun roofs in motor vehicles, are made of anything but
glass. Hence, there is no factual basis to support the
examiner's broad statement that it would have been obvious to
modify the method of Defendini by replacing the glass
substrates of Defendini's electrochromic glazing with plastic
substrates.
With respect to the applied Rukavina patent, appellants
point out that this prior art patent is concerned with
providing polymeric primers for acrylic substrates on which
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007