Appeal No. 2003-0091
Application No. 09/298,640
resistant transparent laminate would have provided the artisan
with ample suggestion or motivation to substitute an interlayer
of ethylene/methacrylic acid copolymers for Schimmelpenningh’s
interlayer of polyvinyl butyral, thereby arriving at the subject
matter recited in claims 28 and 29.
V. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 14 through 17 and
30 through 33 as being unpatentable over Schimmelpenningh in view
of Bolton
Bolton discloses laminated safety glass comprising an
interlayer 24 formed of one or more bonded layers of plastic
chosen on the basis of their flexibility and rigidity (see column
4, line 31 et seq.).
As Bolton does not cure the above noted shortcoming of
Schimmelpenningh relative to the subject matter recited in parent
claim 1, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 14 through 17 as being unpatentable
over Schimmelpenningh in view of Bolton.
We shall sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 30 through 33 as being unpatentable over
Schimmelpenningh in view of Bolton.
Claim 30, which is representative of this group, depends
from claim 22 and further defines the penetration resistant sheet
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007