Appeal 2006-2690
Application 10/101,242
disclose the percent transmittance of visible light through the article is
different when illuminating the first surface as compared to illuminating the
second surface (Br. 6).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. With regard to the
first argument, non-analogous art arguments are not germane to a rejection
based on section 102. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-51, 213 USPQ 1,
7 (CCPA 1982). With regard to the second argument, we find that Long
discloses a glass article formed by a process as follows:
The strip of flat glass is floated on the upper surface of the molten
metal bath in heat exchange relation therewith. An admixture of
powdered glass and a cellulating agent is distributed onto the upper
surface of the flat glass strip as the strip moves longitudinally through
the heating chamber. The admixture is heated to a temperature where
the powdered glass particles soften and coalesce and the cellulating
agent reacts to form entrapped bubbles in the coalesced glass particles
to thereby form a sheet of multicellular glass that is in overlying
relation with the strip of flat glass. The sheet of multicellular glass is
fused or bonded to the upper surface of the strip of flat glass to form a
unitary continuous strip comprising the flat glass and the sheet of
multicellular glass. [Col. 1, l. 66-col. 2, l. 9; see also col. 4, ll. 26-32].
Thus we find that the glass article disclosed by Long has a surface
comprising at least some particles incorporated into a float glass ribbon.2
We also find that Long discloses that the exposed surface of the
2 We note that “to incorporate” as recited in claim 34 on appeal is defined in
the Specification as where the added particle material “interacts with, e.g.,
chemically bonds with” or is mechanically entrapped in, or fuses with the
glass of the float glass ribbon (Specification, ¶ [0040]). Additionally, the
Specification teaches that the particle material can be “fused with, e.g.,
adhered to, the glass ribbon 78” (Specification, ¶ [0044]). See In re Graves,
69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701, (Fed. Cir. 1995)(During
examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007