Appeal 2007-3412
Application 10/832,450
an ITO vapor-deposited heat ray-reflecting glass instead of a float glass in a
laminated glass sandwich and a resin of PVB with 39 weight parts per
hundred of plasticizer used, yielding a maximum tan δ at 8o C (FF 48).
Anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089,
197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978), and evidence of unexpected results is
irrelevant if a claimed invention has been anticipated, In re Malagari, 499
F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
D. Summary
In view of the record and the foregoing considerations, it is
ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of D'Errico 861, D'Errico
848, and Toyama is AFFIRMED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the time for taking further action is
not extendable under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(2006).
AFFIRMED
enc: Toyama EP 1 281 690 A1, published 5 February 2003.
reference against D'Errico's 450 application, having been published on 5
February 2003. We shall not exalt form over substance by insisting that the
analysis rest on the EP disclosure.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013