Ex Parte D - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-3412                                                                               
                Application 10/832,450                                                                         
                35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of prior art.  We have jurisdiction under                           
                35 U.S.C. § 6(b).  We AFFIRM.                                                                  
                      The subject matter on appeal relates to heat-reflective laminated glass                  
                panels such as those found in automobile windshields.  Claim 1 is                              
                representative and reads as follows:                                                           
                      1.     A laminated glass panel, comprising:                                              
                                   a glass layer;                                                              
                                   an infrared reflective layer disposed in contact                            
                                   with said glass layer; and                                                  
                                   a polymer layer disposed in contact with said                               
                                   infrared reflective layer, wherein said polymer                             
                                   layer comprises poly(vinyl butyral) and has a glass                         
                                   transition temperature of 23°C or less.                                     
                (Br. at 8 (Claims Appendix).)                                                                  
                      The Examiner has rejected claims 1–7 and 9–21 under 35 U.S.C.                            
                § 103(a) as being unpatentable in view of the combined teachings of                            
                D'Errico 8612, D'Errico 8483, and Toyama4.  (Examiner's Answer mailed                          
                7 March 2007 ("Answer") at 3.)                                                                 
                      D'Errico has not argued for the separate patentability of the claims.                    
                Therefore, all claims stand or fall with claim 1.  Moreover, D'Errico has not                  
                challenged the status of the references as prior art.  Any argument not                        


                                                                                                              
                2 U.S. Patent 5,427,861 to John J. D'Errico, 27 June 1995.                                     
                3 U.S. Patent 5,529,848 to John J. D'Errico, 25 June 1996.                                     
                4 U.S. Patent 6,903,152 B2, issued 7 June 2005, to Kiyofumi Toyama et al.,                     
                based on application 10/220,197, based on PCT/JP01/01620, filed 2 March                        
                2001.                                                                                          
                                                      2                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013