Appeal 2007-1385
Application 09/997,347
1734, 82 USPQ2d at 1391 (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness that has not been rebutted by Appellant.
The prior art applied by the Examiner shows that applying a
hydrophobic coating on the exterior surface of vehicle glazing was known in
the art (FF 1) as was adhering the peripheral edges of these coated window
panels to moldings (FF 2). There was a known problem: The hydrophobic
water-repellant film has poor affinity to the adhesive (FF 3). The art solved
this problem by masking the edge of the glass panel so that it would not be
coated, but this masking presented further problems (FF 3-4). Yoshinori
describes a UV removal process that overcomes several problems with the
masking technique and results in a window panel with the coating removed
in select areas where it is not wanted. The suggestion to use the UV removal
process of Yoshnori in the process of forming a window panel to be adhered
to moldings around the edge of the panel of automotive glass flows from the
teachings of the references themselves, mainly from the teachings of the
problems in the art and their solutions. “[A]ny need or problem known in
the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR,
127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013