Appeal 2007-1800
Application 10/206,235
First, as previously explained, Hashemi expressly discloses that an
artisan would be able to apply his technique to glass sheets having
compositions and thicknesses other than the one exemplified. While the
Examiner focused on Hashemi’s specifically disclosed range of about
18-20%, an artisan would not have so restricted his or her focus.
Regardless, in applying the teachings of Hashemi to the 1.5-3.2 mm
thick glass sheet of Yoshizawa, the artisan might well have developed an
optimal compressive stress layer thickness of about 18-20% of the total glass
thickness. This is because Hashemi explicitly teaches that “[t]he optimal %
thickness and tension for other thicknesses/compositions of glass may vary
from those described in the example above and could be similarly
determined as would be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of the
present disclosure” (col. 7, ll. 25-30; emphasis added). This teaching would
have given the artisan motivation and a reasonable expectation of success for
providing Yoshizawa’s glass sheet with a compressive stress layer thickness
equal to about 18%, such as the here-claimed 17% value, of the total glass
thickness.
Finally, Appellants argue that application of Hashemi’s technique to
glass sheets having a thickness below his exemplified 3.8 mm value, such as
the 1.5-3.2 mm thick glass sheets of Yoshizawa, may have led to
compressive stress layer thickness values larger than Hashemi’s exemplified
range of about 18-20% since a thinner glass sheet would require a thicker
compressive layer (Reply Br. 2-3). This argument is unpersuasive for two
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013