Appeal No. 2005-1577
Application No. 09/581,159 Page 12
to claim 6 would result. Thus, we shall reverse the examiner’s
separate rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, the examiner additionally
applies Goerenz in a separate § 103(a) rejection. However, the
examiner has not established how Goerenz makes up for the above-
noted deficiencies. Accordingly, we shall likewise reverse the
examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 10 and 20.
Concerning product claims 11-17, the examiner relies on a
combination of Winter and Tweadey as suggesting the claimed
subject matter for reasons as discussed in the separate rejection
of method claim 1. See page 9 of the answer. As explained
above, however, the examiner has not fairly established how the
disparate teachings of Tweadey would have suggested that one of
ordinary skill in the art should modify the antenna containing
window structure of Winter in a manner so as to result in the
claimed glazing structure, including a transparent surface
coating arranged as recited in claim 11 with a protective layer.
Consequently, we shall reverse the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection
of claims 11-17, on this record.
Concerning claims 21 and 22, the examiner relies on a
combination of the teachings of Winter, Shukuri and Marquardt.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007