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
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013