Appeal 2007-1385
Application 09/997,347
Appellant argues the § 103(a) rejections of claims 23, 24, and 26-33
as a group. While the Examiner added references to reject other claims,
Appellants do not argue those rejections separately. Therefore, we select a
single claim, claim 23, to represent the issues on appeal with respect to all
the§ 103(a) rejections.
The Examiner finds that Yoshinori describes a method of removing
selected portions of a hydrophobic coating from vehicle glazing by UV
irradiation, and relies upon Teranishi as showing that the exterior surface of
the glazing must be free of the hydrophobic coating to allow bonding of the
window to window gaskets and trim. The Examiner further relies upon
Curtze to show the well-known aspect of coating removal and bonding to
trim, and Anderson and Franz to show the well-known aspect of coating
automotive glazing with hydrophobic coatings (Answer 6-24). Each of the
rejections is grounded on the conclusion that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the hydrophobic coating on the
periphery of automotive glazing as taught by Yoshinori before the molding
gasket of the automotive window frame was adhered to the window glazing
as it was known in the art that the hydrophobic coating impedes bonding
(id.).
Appellant contends that the Examiner has resorted to improper
hindsight reasoning in analyzing the patentability of the claims, and that this
is indicated by the number of references relied upon to reject the claims (Br.
11-12). Appellant further contends that there is no suggestion or motivation
to modify the teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention
(Br. 12-20).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013