Appeal No. 2005-1577
Application No. 09/581,159 Page 6
direct connection, as an alternative to the capacitive connection
shown in Figure 4, coating 212 and connector 224 would be
overlapping, just like coating 112 and connector 124 depicted in
the direct connection of Figure 3 . . .” (answer, page 6).
Moreover, the examiner acknowledges that Winter does not
disclose appellants’ claimed step of “removing the transparent
surface coating proximate at least one edge of the coated pane to
create an exposed region between about 0.1 mm and about 5 mm from
a peripheral edge of the pane along a main surface of the pane.”
See independent claim 1 and the removing step as recited in
independent claim 18. In addition, the examiner acknowledges
that Winter does not disclose that the connector (224) in the
unillustrated optional direct connection embodiment with two
glass plies is an opaque protective layer that is applied after a
removal step as required in appellants’ claim 1. Nor does Winter
teach that connector (224) is substantially impermeable to water
vapor as is appellants’ claimed protective layer as applied in
the method of appellants’ claim 1.
The examiner further maintains (answer, pages 7 and 8) that:
It is noted the present specification teaches the
protective layer being an electro conductive ceramic
paint (p. 3, lines 5-7 and 24-25). Therefore, the
skilled artisan would have readily appreciated that the
electro conductive ceramic paint layer of Winter would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007