Appeal 2007-1800
Application 10/206,235
are correspondingly rejected over these references and further in view of
Kaneko.
The arguments presented in the Brief (i.e., filed Jan. 23, 2006) and
Reply Brief (i.e., filed Sep. 26, 2006) are focused on the thickness
limitations of claims 1 and 2. No other claimed features are separately
argued by the Appellants on the record of this appeal. Therefore, in our
disposition of this appeal, we likewise will focus on claims 1 and 2.
It is the Examiner’s basic position that it would have been obvious to
provide the tempered glass of Yoshizawa with compression layer
thicknesses in accordance with the teachings of Hashemi and that the
resulting tempered glass would possess thickness values within the ranges
defined by claims 1 and 2 (Answer 4-5).
The Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine
Yoshizawa with Hashemi and that, even if combined, the result would not
correspond to the tempered glass of claims 1 and 2 (Br. 3-4).
Findings of Fact
(1) It is undisputed that Yoshizawa discloses tempered glass having a
curved shape for use in automobiles (col. 1, ll. 4-16) which has a
thickness of 1.5 to 3.2 mm and a compressive stress at the edge of the
glass sheet periphery (col. 4, ll. 44-52). Concomitantly, it is undisputed
that Yoshizawa discloses all aspects of claims 1 and 2 except for the
minimum and average thickness features of the compressive stress layer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013