Appeal 2006-2690
Application 10/101,242
The Examiner finds that Self discloses glass articles having a thin
coating of silica particles on one surface (Final Office action 4).
Appellants argue that Self is not analogous prior art (Br. 7).
Appellants also argue that Self discloses a glass having a coating of colloidal
silica with a particle size less than 30 millimicrons in diameter, and fails to
disclose or teach that the particles are arranged in a pattern or have the
transmittance properties required by claim 50 on appeal (Br. 7-8).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, a non-
analogous prior art argument is not germane to a rejection based on
§ 102(b). See Self, supra. As also discussed above, and correctly construed
by the Examiner (Answer 5-6), Appellants define “pattern” as including
repeating or non-repeating patterns, which include random patterns. Finally,
as also discussed above, when two surfaces have different compositions, the
transmittance of light through the respective surfaces would have to be
“different” to some degree, since the word “different” has not been defined
as any specific amount of difference.
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 which Appellants have not adequately rebutted.
Therefore we AFFIRM the rejection of claim 50 under § 102(b) over Self.
D. The Rejection over Porth
The Examiner finds that Porth discloses glass articles having glass
beads embedded in one surface of a substrate (Final Office action 4).
Appellants argue that Porth is non-analogous prior art (Br. 8).
Appellants further argue that in Porth at least a portion of the particles are
not incorporated into the substrate or supporting surface (id.). Appellants
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007