Appeal 2007-3412
Application 10/832,450
of 5°C to 10°C. (Toyama Table 2 at 21:1–30, Examples 1–4 and
comparative example 7; Table 3 at 25:1–50 (Examples 10-16, Comparative
examples 9–12); Table 5, Examples 18 and 18, and Comparative
Example 15.)
48. Comparative Example 15 is of special interest. An ITO (Indium-Tin-
Oxide) vapor-deposited heat ray-reflecting glass was used in lieu of one of
the sheets of float glass in a sandwich laminate, and a resin of PVB with
39 weight parts per hundred of plasticizer were used, yielding a tan δ
maximum at 8°C. (Toyama at 27:30–35 and Table 5.)
C. Discussion
Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying findings of fact
as to the scope and content of the prior art and an evaluation of whether the
differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been
such that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. So-called secondary considerations, including evidence of
unexpected results, may provide indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness.
Graham v. John Deere Intl. Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966)
On appeal, the procedural burden of going forward is on the Appellant to
demonstrate reversible error by the Examiner.
The Examiner found that D'Errico 861 disclosed laminated glazing
panels having an infrared reflective layer, and in Example 2, PVB layers
having 33 parts per 100 parts of plasticizer. (Answer6 at 3.) The Examiner
found further that the glass laminate was disclosed to be useful in motor
6 Examiner's Answer mailed 7 March 2007 ("Answer").
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013