Appeal No. 2006-0037
Application No. 09/874,371
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2, and claim 3 which stands or falls
therewith, as being unpatentable over Russell, as well as the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4, which also stands
or falls with claim 2, as being unpatentable over Russell in view
of Allemand.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites the step of selecting
a coating thickness to achieve a desired thermal emission
coefficient for the coating. As Russell discloses this step (see,
for example, column 4, lines 19-33; column 10, lines 6-15; and
column 23, line 36, through column 25, line 20), we shall sustain
the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5, and claim 6
which stands or falls therewith, as being unpatentable over Russell
in view of Allemand.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and sets forth that the at least
one interior surface of the airplane cabin comprises at least one
window of transparent plastic material wherein the coating is
applied to the at least one window. The above noted teachings of
Russell considered together with the admission on page 8 of the
appellants’ specification that airplane windows “are normally made
of a transparent plastic material” would have suggested this
subject matter. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7 as being unpatentable over Russell in
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007