Appeal 2006-2330
Application 10/364,089
invention was made to heat treat the coated article of Depauw/Okamura as taught
by Lingle, in order to comply with vehicle glass safety standards. Id.
Appellants argue that “[c]laim 41 does not require the article to be heat
treated so the Lingle reference is irrelevant.” Br. 10. Appellants also argue that
the applied prior art fails to disclose a method that involves heating the coating
until it has the claimed sheet resistance as recited in claim 53. Br. 11. However,
the Examiner does not rely on Lingle for a teaching of a heating step per se, but to
establish that, given the substantially identical method of heat treating used by
Appellants, one would expect the resultant prior art “infrared reflective films [to]
have a sheet resistance in the range of 1.5 to 3 ohms per square” as recited in
claims 41, 43, and 53. See Answer 7-8. Appellants have not offered any evidence
to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness. See In re Spada, 911
F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[W]hen the PTO
shows sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art
are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). See
also, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 41, 43, and 53 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(2005).
AFFIRMED
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007