Appeal 2007-1800
Application 10/206,235
reasons. First, it appears to be based entirely on speculation by Appellants’
representative. Second, the aforenoted proposition that a thinner glass sheet
would require a thicker compressive layer is contrary to Appellants’
Specification disclosure at pages 2, 3, and 6.
Conclusion of Law
For the above-stated reasons, we conclude that it would have been
obvious for an artisan to combine Yoshizawa and Hashemi in order to
provide the former with an optimal compressive stress layer thickness such
as equal to 17% of the total glass thickness. The tempered glass resulting
from this combination would have compressive stress layer thicknesses
within the minimum and average thicknesses required by claims 1 and 2.
We hereby sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of these claims
as well as the § 103 rejections of the other non-argued claims on appeal.
Order
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
Oblon, Spivak, Mcclelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C.
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013