Appeal No. 2000-009
Application 08/742,426
notification of “6-12-89” as “500 pieces of ‘super green tint glass’ . . . [that] was substantially the
same glass composition discussed above.”
We refer to the Ford letter for the discussion at page 2 of the “UV transmittance” and the
“weight percent of ferrous oxide.”
The evidence of the second alleged sale of glass is stated in the Ford letter (page 2) to be
found in the one “rear door glass” of a “1987 Scorpio vehicle” (Scorpio glass) that Ford
purchased from “Earnie’s [sic, Ernie’s] Auto Parts,” “an automobile recycling yard,” as shown by
an invoice dated “3/24/94” which “incorrectly identifies the Scorpio as a 1988 model year
vehicle” (Attachment F). We observe that the invoice also lists one “front door glass” for a “88
Scorpio” having the same VIN and “yard” numbers. A “copy of the identifying information
etched at the lower corner of the glass,” such etchings said to be common in vehicle and
architectural glass, “shows the glass to have been made by Sekurit, an SVG affiliated company,
in March of 1987” (Attachment G), but no explanation of the manner in which the date
information is determined from the etched information is set forth. The VIN number appears on
two pages stated to be “Ford records . . . showing that the vehicle arrived in the United States in
May 1987 (Attachment H).”
It is stated in the Ford letter that the “1987 Scorpio glass is typical high-iron soda-lime-
silica green glass” and that chemical and optical analysis are reported for samples “SGV 87A”
and “SGV 87 B” of “SGV 1987 Scorpio doors” as obtained, at least with respect to the chemical
analysis, on June 16, 1994 (Attachments I and J). The Ford letter provides a comparison of the
reported properties for the tested glass with “Claims [sic] 18 and Claim 21” of the “PPG ‘059
Application” (page 3).
The examiner rejects all of the appealed claims under § 102(b) “based upon a public use
or sale of the invention,” relying on the evidence in the Ford letter attachments “A-J” as
evidence that the claimed glass was “on sale” before the critical date (answer, page 3). The
examiner submits that “Attachments F-H establish the ‘on sale’ date of the Scorpio glass,”
because the “composition of the Scorpio glass is shown at page 3 of the [Ford] letter and
attachment I, anticipates the instant claims” (id.). The examiner does not consider the “process
limitations in the dependent claims . . . to distinguish the claimed product or composition” (id.).
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007