Appeal 2007-3412
Application 10/832,450
vehicle windshields to reduce heat build-up, and concluded that the "claimed
method of reducing electromagnetic radiation through an opening [i.e.,
claim 20] is met [sic: would have been obvious]. (Id.) The Examiner found
that although D'Errico 861 did not disclose the laminated structure recited in
claim 21, D'Errico 848 disclosed such a structure. (Id.) The Examiner also
found that D'Errico 848 describes PVB layers plasticized with 20–80 phr
plasticizer. (Id.)
The Examiner found further that Toyama disclosed plasticized PVB
interlayers for laminated glass, wherein the disclosed plasticizers were also
disclosed by D'Errico 848 and by the D'Errico Specification in similar
amounts. (Answer at 4.) The Examiner concluded that the effect of the
plasticizers on the Tg of the PVB layer would be the same, namely, to lower
the Tg to a similar value. (Id.) The Examiner noted further that Toyama
taught that the temperature of maximum tan δ corresponded to the glass
transition temperature. (Id.) The Examiner concluded that the Tg of the
plasticized PVB layer having 60 weight parts plasticizer per hundred weight
parts PVB would be about 6°C or less, as shown in Toyama Table 2. (Id.)
D'Errico does not challenge any of the Examiner's findings of fact.
(Answer at 3–7; Reply Brief filed 7 May 2007 ("Reply Br.") at 3–4.) Nor
does D'Errico challenge the status of Toyama as prior art. We hold all such
challenges waived, as D'Errico has had a full and fair opportunity to make
them, but has chosen to dispute only the conclusions the Examiner draws
from the findings of fact. Moreover, D'Errico's arguments are effectively
confined to the patentability of claim 1, i.e., D'Errico has not made any
separate arguments for the patentability of any other claim. Accordingly, we
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013