Appeal 2006-2330
Application 10/364,089
for a device to minimize the leakage of electromagnetic field, while Depauw is
directed to a laminated assembly for use in vehicle windows where this problem
does not arise. Br. 6. In an obviousness analysis, we consider “not merely what
the references disclose, but whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed
with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by
the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the
combination recited in the claims.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d
1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor
Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One
of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior
art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”). See also, In re GPAC, Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573, 1578, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(A reference is
relevant if it is within the inventor's field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem confronting the inventor.). We do not find Appellants’
argument persuasive since it fails to take into account the problem confronting the
inventors at the time of the invention. Rather, we are in agreement with the
Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to look to Okamura and Depauw since both references are concerned with the
general problem facing the inventor at the time of the invention, i.e., providing a
coated substrate with low visible light reflectance and high visible light
transmittance. (See Answer 12).
Another argument advanced by Appellants is that Depauw discloses silver
metal layers having geometric thicknesses of less than 38.4, while a key limitation
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007