Appeal No. 2005-1577
Application No. 09/581,159 Page 9
For example, Koontz is concerned with forming a heated windshield
wherein an electrically conductive coating (18) is applied so as
to leave marginal areas for furnishing electrical connections and
teaches, as one option, that the coating can be applied to a
glass ply and subsequently deleted from those marginal areas.
See, e.g., column 4, lines 16-53 of Koontz. Similarly, Tweadey
teaches applying a film stack useful as a heating element or for
solar load reduction on a glass ply and thereafter using a laser
to remove a portion of the stack forming a narrow band of stack
free glass ply around the periphery of the stack and using a PVB
laminating layer to fill that band. See, e.g., column 2, line 20
through column 6, line 65 of Tweadey.
As such, we do not agree with the examiner’s obviousness
position as outlined at pages 7 and 8 of the brief suggesting
that the disparate Koontz and Tweadey references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art a modification in a
method of making the window glazing and antenna arrangement of
Winters in a fashion such that a method corresponding to
appellants’ method would have resulted.
In particular, we note that the antenna connector (224) of
Winters does not correspond to the claimed protective layer that
is applied according to appellants’ claims, as the examiner
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007