Appeal 2006-2690
Application 10/101,242
multicellular glass sheet will have undulations or irregularities, and thus,
contrary to Appellants’ argument, has a “textured or irregular surface”
(Long, col. 3, ll. 34-37). With respect to the third argument, we agree with
Appellants that Long does not explicitly disclose any transmittance
properties. However, we find that such a property would have been
implicitly disclosed by Long, since the transmittance of light through the
surface with particles fused therein must be different, to some extent, than
the transmittance of light through the second surface which does not have
any particles fused therewith. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231
USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(An anticipation rejection under § 102(b)
requires that the reference disclose, either expressly or inherently, every
limitation of the claim). We note that claim 50 only requires that the
transmittance of light be “different” for the first surface as compared to the
second surface, and this “different” amount is not specified in the claims or
the Specification.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Final Office action
and the Answer, we determine that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of anticipation in view of Long. When the Examiner has shown
sound basis for believing that the products of Appellants and the prior art are
the same, Appellants have the burden of showing that they are not. See In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We
determine that Appellants have not met this burden. Therefore we AFFIRM
the rejection of claims 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 50 and 52-54 under §
102(b) over Long.
C. The Rejection over Self
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007