Appeal No. 2000-009
Application 08/742,426
Appellants submit that the Scorpio glass as described in the Ford letter does not meet the
claim requirement for ultraviolet transmittance for two reasons. Appellants first contend that
there is no evidence that the “Scorpio glass had the claimed optical properties over the entire
range of thicknesses recited in the claims,” that is, “ultraviolet transmittance no greater than 38
percent (300 to 400 nm) for glass thicknesses ranging from 0.154 to 0.189 inches,” on the basis
that “[u]ltraviolet transmittance increases as glass thickness decreases,” citing United States
Patent 4,792,536 (‘536 patent) (id.). Appellants extrapolate the data in the Ford letter, stating
that if “the Scorpio glass had an ultraviolet transmittance of 38.0% at a thickness of 0.156 inches,
then the glass would have had an ultraviolet transmittance greater than 38.0% at a glass thickness
of 0.154” (id., pages 8-9). Appellants submit that the Scorpio glass is thus outside the claims
because “the specification, as originally filed, requires the glass compositions to have the recited
optical properties over the entire range of thicknesses recited in the claims, including a glass
thickness of 0.154 inches” (id., page 9).
Secondly, appellants contend that the Ford letter “incorrectly reports the ultraviolet
transmittance for the Scorpio glass” as “38.3% (280 to 400 nm) for the glass thickness of 0.1575
inches” while a calculation according to the method of the ‘536 patent, is “an ultraviolet
transmittance of 39.05% at a glass thickness of 0.154 inches,” which “is consistent” with the
value determined with the Thickness-Transmittance Nomograph in the Glass Engineering
Handbook5 (brief, page 9).
The examiner is not persuaded by appellants’ arguments that the evidence is unreliable,
“because appellants have not supplied any evidence to cast sufficient doubt on the authenticity of
the letter” (answer, page 4). It appears that the examiner responds to appellants’ arguments that
the St. Gobain glass does not anticipate the claims in the context of addressing appellants’ with
respect to the Scorpio glass, because the examiner states, with respect to the Scorpio glass, that
attachment “D” shows “a redox of .279” and that the “amounts of cerium oxide determined in the
attachments and in the letter are zero or at most trace amounts” and “‘consisting essentially of”
does not exclude trace amounts of components” (id.). We note here that “attachment D” is
5 We find that a copy of pertinent part of the Glass Engineering Handbook was submitted with
the amendment of August 7, 1998 (Paper No. 13).
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007