Appeal 2007-1800
Application 10/206,235
Here, an artisan would have recognized that Hashemi’s technique for
optimizing the strength of tempered glass generally (Finding of Fact 2)
would likewise optimize the strength of Yoshizawa’s specific tempered glass
having a curved shape for use as automobile window glass. This is evinced
by Hashemi’s express disclosure that his teachings would enable an artisan
to determine optimal compressive stress layer thicknesses for tempered glass
sheets other than the one exemplified by patentee (Finding of Fact 5). For
these reasons, an artisan would have been motivated to so combine
Yoshizawa and Hashemi based upon a reasonable expectation of success.
Appellants’ contrary view derives from the Examiner’s proposal that
an artisan would have combined these references by making Yoshizawa’s
compressive stress layer thickness about 18-20% of the total glass thickness
as specifically taught by Hashemi with respect to a particular glass
composition of 3.8 mm thickness (Finding of Fact 4). According to the
Appellants, Hashemi’s disclosure of a relationship between compression
layer thickness and glass sheet composition/thickness (Finding of Fact 3)
teaches away from applying Patentee’s specific range of about 18-20% to
Yoshizawa’s glass sheet of 3.2 mm thickness (Br. 9-10). In other words,
Appellants believe there is no motivation or reasonable expectation of
success for applying Hashemi’s specific range of about 18-20% to a glass
sheet thickness other than 3.8 mm (Br. 12). This argument is unpersuasive
for a number of reasons.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013