Appeal No. 2006-0037
Application No. 09/874,371
greater than approximately 0.5 to the interior surface of an
airplane window. The requisite motivation lies in Russell’s
disclosure that heat loss to and through the window of a vehicle
such as an aircraft can be diminished by using a thermal control
film or coating having a high degree of heat reflectivity. As an
airplane window constitutes part of the airplane’s cabin and the
application thereto of such a coating would necessarily provide
improved radiation exchange with a passenger in the cabin as
compared to an uncoated window, Russell would have rendered obvious
the subject matter recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
and independent claims 18 and 20 which stand or fall therewith, as
being unpatentable over Russell.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further defines the coating
as being a transparent conductive coating. Russell’s disclosure
that transparent metal (i.e. conductive) thermal control films or
coatings are a conventional, non-toxic, inexpensive and easily
available choice as an optical coating for glazing applications
(see column 3, line 66, through column 4, line 33) would have
suggested the use of same to implement the above discussed
application of a coating to the interior surface of an airplane
window. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007