Appeal No. 2006-0037
Application No. 09/874,371
wherein the film is adhered to one of the faces of the pane, and
double pane constructions wherein the film is disposed between, and
either adhered to or spaced from, the inside surfaces of the panes
(see column 6, line 56, through column 7, line 5).
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-3,
15, 17, 18 and 20, anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Notwithstanding the disclosure
therein that visibly transparent, heat reflective thermal control
films can be used in conjunction with aircraft windows and that
such films can be designed to prevent heat loss through a window,
Russell does not actually teach, either expressly or under
principles of inherency, the application of a heat-reflecting
coating to the “interior” surface of an airplane cabin or any part
thereof (including a window) as recited in independent claims 1, 18
and 20. Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claims 1, 18 and 20, and dependent claims 2,
3, 15 and 17, as being anticipated by Russell.
Russell, however, clearly would have suggested the application
of a heat-reflecting coating with a thermal emission coefficient no
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007