Appeal No. 2003-0091
Application No. 09/298,640
sheet 5 and sheet layer 3, each of which materially affects the
basic characteristics the glass. The examiner’s position that
the sheet layer 3 and polyvinylbutyral sheets 4 and 5
collectively constitute a “penetration resistant sheet” as
required by claim 22 runs counter to Grolig’s description of
these elements as separate entities. Hence, Grolig does not meet
the exclusions required by the “consisting essentially of”
limitation in claim 22.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 22 and dependent claims
23 through 25, 30, 31 and 35 as being anticipated by Grolig.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 11, 18 through 27 and 34 through 36 as being unpatentable
over Schimmelpenningh
Schimmelpenningh discloses a safety glass structure 20
resistant to extreme wind and impact conditions. The structure
comprises
a frame forming an opening and defining an outer rigid
channel [1]; a laminated glass panel [10] within the
opening comprising first and second glass layers [5 and
6] bonded to an interlayer [7] of plasticized polyvinyl
butyral [PVB]; an inner rigid channel [8] within the
frame circumscribing the periphery of and bonded to
said laminated glass panel by a self-sealing adhesive
[9] which permits no or minimal relative movement
between the border area of the panel and said inner
rigid channel; and said inner rigid channel being
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007