Appeal No. 2004-1073
Application No. 09/046,105
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with appellants that the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejections.
JP ‘552 and JP ‘633, like appellants, are directed to an
ultraviolet-absorbing glass fiber composition, but both
references fail to teach or suggest the use of either of the
claimed copper or chromium compounds as UV-absorbing agents in
the glass composition. As emphasized by appellants, both
references teach very specific combinations of compounds in
specific amounts to provide the function of UV absorption. In
particular, JP ‘633 discloses a glass fiber composition
comprising Fe2O3, CeO2 and TiO2. JP ‘552 teaches a UV-absorbing
glass composition comprising the same three components in
addition to MnO2 and As2O5.
To remedy the deficiencies in the primary references the
examiner cites Loughridge and Miyauchi for teaching the
equivalence of the claimed chromium and copper oxides and the
disclosed oxides of iron, cerium, titanium, cobalt, manganese and
nickel as UV absorbing agents. However, Loughridge is directed
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007