Appeal No. 2005-1577
Application No. 09/581,159 Page 10
suggests. In this regard, we note that appellants define the
protective layer as a layer that is substantially impermeable to
water vapor diffusion and as a layer that serves to protect or
prevent the corrosion of a transparent surface coating by
covering the exposed portion (boundary edge) thereof. See, e.g.,
page 2, lines 31-33 and page 3, line 34 through page 4, line 2
and Page 4, lines 23-25 of appellants’ specification.3 Here, the
examiner has not reasonably established that the antenna
connector (224) of Winter would serve as a protective layer, for
the underlying layer (212) of the antenna-containing glazing
assemblage disclosed therein, as claimed herein.
The speculative position asserted by the examiner is merely
an unsupported opinion of the examiner and such is not enough to
establish the obviousness of the claimed subject matter within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Rather, as our reviewing court
has made clear, the examiner must identify a particularized
suggestion, reason or motivation to combine references or make
the proposed modification in a manner so as to arrive at the
claimed invention. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359, 47
3 We construe the claims by giving the terms employed
therein their broadest reasonable meaning as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art when read in light
of the specification.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007