Appeal 2006-3437
Application 10/702,801
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the adhesive properties
discussed by Ross do not suggest the need for an adhesive of the type taught
by Hastings" (page 15 of principal Br., penultimate paragraph). It is not
necessary for a conclusion of obviousness that Ross needs a ceramic
adhesive, but it is sufficient that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to select the known ceramic adhesive as one of the various
adhesives noted by Ross. We note that Appellants' Specification attaches no
particular criticality to the use of a ceramic adhesive, and Appellants'
preference of such would allay any suggestion of criticality. In the absence
of any unexpected results, we are satisfied that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to resort to routine experimentation to
determine the particular adhesives that provide the optimum properties for a
specific application.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "[t]he recited
bonding element is instead a free standing element that is positioned
between the optical coating and the article surface, as is the standard
industry usage of the term 'bonding element,'” referencing two US patents
(page 16 of principal Br., last paragraph). We agree with the Examiner that
the recited ceramic-containing bonding element, when given its broadest
reasonable interpretation, includes layers of adhesives that harden after
application and is not necessarily a free standing element. Appellants have
not established an art-recognized definition for "bonding element."
Moreover, as noted above, Appellants' Specification acknowledges that such
bonding elements were known in the art.
As for the various features of the dependent claims on appeal, we are
satisfied that the additional references cited by the Examiner establish that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007