Appeal No. 2005-1577
Application No. 09/581,159 Page 15
Processing Corp. v. American Maize-Products Co., 840 F.2d 902,
907, 5 USPQ2d 1788, 1792 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
From our perspective, the examiner’s rejections appear to be
premised on impermissible hindsight reasoning. On the record of
this appeal, it is our view that the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the subject matter defined by the appealed claims.
Other Issues
Prior to final disposition of the application, the examiner
should determine whether or not Tweadley in combination with
Marquardt would have suggested a laminated glazing unit to one of
ordinary skill in the art, such as required by any of the product
claims, such as claims 11-17 and 21. In this regard, we note
that Marquardt suggests using an edge seal material in addition
to a bonding layer in a glazing unit to seal the edges, Tweadley
is concerned with edge sealing, and at least claim 11 does not
require a ceramic protective layer.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007