Appeal 2007-1385 Application 09/997,347 The dispositive issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant and the Examiner is: Has Appellant overcome the rejections by showing that the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding of reasons to combine the cited references? We answer in the negative. A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the following Findings of Facts (FF): 1. It was known in the automotive window glass/glazing art at the time of the invention to apply a hydrophobic coating to the exterior of the glass panel, the purpose of which was to make the window water- repellant (Teranishi, col. 1, ll. 13-35; Franz, col. 3, ll. 17-28; Anderson 17, second full para. and para bridging pp. 18-19). 2. According to Teranishi: Moldings are bonded to the peripheral edges of automobile window glass panels or the like with an adhesive such as a urethane sealant. A water-repellent film has a poor affinity for such an adhesive. For applying an adhesive to an automobile window glass panel coated with a water- repellent film, it has been customary to apply a masking tape to a peripheral edge of the glass panel, apply a coating solution to the glass panel, thereafter remove the masking tape, and then apply the adhesive to the unmasked edge region. (Teranishi, col. 1, ll. 48-56). But the masking method creates a raised portion (103a shown in Fig. 4) which tends to produce optical interference, making the film edge too conspicuous (Teranishi, col. 1, l. 57 to col. 2, l. 4). 3. Yoshinori identifies other problems associated with the prior art processes of masking the area where the coating was not desired: Namely, these methods have poor productivity and are not good enough for wide practical applications. In the method 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013