Appeal No. 2000-009
Application 08/742,426
The evidence of record relied on by the examiner is the letter of August 2, 1994, with
attachments, from the Ford Motor Company (Ford letter) to appellants’ assignee, PPG Industries,
Inc. (PPG), alleging that two separate sales of “high-iron soda-lime-silica glass to Ford in the
U.S. more than a year prior to the filing date of . . . pending patent application Ser. No.
07/976,059” (‘059 application) (Ford letter, page 1).4 According to appellants, the present
application is a division of the ‘059 application, filed November 13, 1992, now United States
Patent 5,593,929 (‘929 patent), issued January 14, 1997, which application is a continuation-in-
part of application 07/857,903, filed march 26, 1992, now United States Patent 5,385,872 (‘872
patent), issued January 31, 1995, which application is a continuation-in-part of application
07/559,915, filed July 30, 1990, now United States Patent 5,240,886, (‘886 patent) issued August
31, 1993.
The evidence of the “sale of glass to Ford by Saint Gobain-Vitrage International
(“SGV”)” (St. Gobain glass) is alleged in the Ford letter (pages 1-2) to be found in the purchase
order dated “02-13-89” (Attachment A), the invoice dated “09/11/88” (Attachment B), a lab
report dated “1/22/90,” and a report on “solar transmittance,” circa “Jan 90,” although it appears
from a hand written note to have been “measured 01/19/90” (attachment D). A further report on,
e.g., “% transmittance,” circa “Jan 90” (Attachment D-1) is not referred to.
The invoice lists five sizes of apparently the same “experimental low transmission green
tint glass purchased from Saint Gobain for special fabrication project at PR&D” with hand
written sequential descriptors and the common name “parsol green,” and references “your order:
from 28/10/88” and the price of “US$ 17835.32.” The address on the invoice is “FORD GLASS
DIVISION PRODUCT RESEARCH + DEVELOPMENT . . . USA-48120 DEARBARN.” The
purchase “notification” to buyer “EUROGLASS,” with the hand notation “(Vegla SGV U.S.
rep),” for the same sizes, sequential descriptors and common name “parsol green,” appears to
indicate a delivery date of “09/30/88” and an order date of “02/13/89” and shows the total price
of “$ 17835.32.” The address on the purchase “notification,” to the best that it can be determined
rejections . . . . [761 F.2d at 674, 226 USPQ at 2-3; internal citations and footnote
omitted.]
4 The Ford letter and attachments were submitted by appellants in the information disclosure
statement of February 13, 1997 (Paper No. 5).
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007