Appeal No. 2003-0091
Application No. 09/298,640
appellant’s claims since Schimmelpenningh both intended and
appreciated its existence. See In re Mullin, 481 F.2d 1333,
1336, 179 USPQ 97, 99 (CCPA 1973).
Furthermore, as the excess PVB is ultimately intended to
form a self-sealing adhesive 9 bonding the laminated glass panel
10 and the inner rigid channel 8, it would have been obvious to
extend it from the edges of the exterior and interior transparent
sheets a substantially uniform distance around the perimeters of
these sheets as recited in dependent claim 25.
Thus, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 22 and 25 as being unpatentable over
Schimmelpenningh.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 23, 24, 26, 27 and 34 through 36 as
being unpatentable over Schimmelpenningh since the appellant has
not challenged such with any reasonable specificity, thereby
allowing these claims to stand or fall with parent claim 22 (see
In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed.
Cir. 1987).
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 12, 13, 28 and 29
as being unpatentable over Schimmelpenningh in view of Fischer
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007