Appeal 2006-2690
Application 10/101,242
particles incorporated into a float ribbon for decorative purposes (Br. 9).
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to a
teaching directed to thermal insulation to conceive a decorative, patterned
glass article (Br. 10). Appellants argue that there is no discussion in Long of
surface roughness (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. First, we must consider the
argument that Long is non-analogous art. Appellants argue that the “present
invention” relates to a patterned glass article (Br. 5). We determine that
Long is also directed to a patterned glass article, even though its ultimate use
is as thermal insulation (Long, col. 3, ll. 34-42). Furthermore, we determine
that Long is relevant to the problem addressed by Appellants, namely the
incorporation of glass particles into a glass ribbon in a float chamber (Long,
col. 1, l. 50-col. 2, l. 13; compare with the Specification, ¶ [0001] to [0008]).
See In re Woods, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (C.C.P.A.
1979). Secondly, as discussed above, we determine that Long does disclose
a glass article having a surface comprised of particles incorporated into a
float ribbon, which is all that is required by the claims on appeal (see Long,
col. 1, l. 64-col. 2, l. 14). Third, we note that, as discussed above, Long
teaches that the exposed surface has a certain roughness (col. 3, ll. 34-37).
We determine that the degree of roughness would have been easily
optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Finally, we note that
the motivation to modify the prior art reference need not be identical to that
of Appellants to establish obviousness. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427,
1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007