Ex Parte Odeh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2013

10956371 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SAM ODEH
____________

Appeal 2011-009149
Application 10/956,371
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13, 14, and 18-22. App. Br. 5. Claims 3, 12, 15-17, and
23-29 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2011-009149
Application 10/956,371

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, the sole independent claim, is reproduced below:
1. A heatable vehicle window, comprising:
a glass substrate supporting a heatable conductor;
first and second conductive bus bars electrically
connected to the heatable conductor, each of the first and
second bus bars being located electrically between the heatable
conductor and a respective conductive lead;
wherein the heatable conductor is substantially
transparent and extends across a central portion of the window
including across a substantial portion of a width and length of
the window, and wherein the first bus bar and the second bus
bar comprise conductive material and frit, and are black in
color; and
wherein the heatable conductor and the bus bars are
provided on a first major surface of the glass substrate at least
partially over and directly contacting a nonconductive black
colored layer that is also provided on the glass substrate, and
wherein the non-conductive black colored layer is provided
along at least one side area of the glass substrate and is not
located in a central area of the window.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 14, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sol ‘419 (US 6,559,419 B1; iss. May 6, 2003)
and Reiss (US 4,910,380; iss. Mar. 20, 1990), as evidenced by Lynam (US
2002/0041424 A1; pub. Apr. 11, 2002).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sol ‘419 and Reiss as evidenced by Lynam, and further in view of Sol ‘619
(US 6,492,619 B1; iss. Dec. 10, 2002).

Appeal 2011-009149
Application 10/956,371

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 14, and 18-22 unpatentable over Sol ‘419, Reiss, Lynam
The Examiner found that Sol ‘419 discloses all limitations of claim 1,
except black electrically conducting bus bars and a heatable conductor 3 and
bus bars 7, 9 being provided on a first major surface of the glass substrate at
least partially over and directly contacting a non-conductive black layer 51
that is provided on a glass substrate. Ans. 5, 7. The Examiner found that
Reiss discloses a black electrically conducting layer 3, which can function as
a bus bar and heatable conductor, provided on a first major surface of a glass
substrate 1A at least partially over and directly contacting a non-conductive
black colored layer 2. Ans. 7 (citing fig. 5), 13. The Examiner determined
that it would have been obvious to modify Sol ‘419 to provide a heatable
conductor and bus bars on a first major surface of a glass substrate, at least
partially over and directly contacting a non-conductive black layer, so that
the conductive element is in the obscuration band and does not disturb the
appearance of the assembly, as taught by Reiss and Lynam. Ans. 7-9. The
Examiner reasoned that because Reiss teaches a conductive black frit strip
that can be a current distributing strip and a bus bar, it would have been
obvious to replace the bus bar configuration of Sol ‘419 with the current
distributing strip and bus bar of Reiss to provide a connecting element in the
obscuration band without disturbing the appearance of the assembly, and to
provide uniform structure and reduced manufacturing expense. Ans. 14-16.
Appellant argues that Sol ‘419 and Reiss disclose different heating
systems so that a skilled artisan would not have looked to Reiss to improve
Sol ‘419 in the manner suggested by the Examiner by replacing the bus bar
configuration of Sol ‘419 with the current distributing strip and bus bar
Appeal 2011-009149
Application 10/956,371

4
functionality of Reiss, because doing so would have required a change from
a heatable coating type of heatable windshield (Sol ‘419) to a printed line
type of heatable windshield (Reiss), and this change would destroy the
underlying principle of operation of Sol ‘419. App. Br. 3-4. We agree.
The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning,
a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a skilled
artisan would have had a reason to replace Sol ‘419’s bus bar configuration
with the current distributing strip and bus bar of Reiss. Sol ‘419 discloses a
bus bar 7, 9 that extends through a transparent conductive layer 3 such that
application of current across bus bars 7, 9 causes current to flow through the
conductive coating portions 3a-3c creating heating zones that heat up the
window. Col. 4, ll. 47-52; figs. 1, 8. Sol ‘419 also discloses an opaque layer
51 that may be provided on a surface of the window to shield bus bars 7, 9
from persons viewing the heatable window; however, the opaque layer 51 is
separated from the bus bars 7, 9 by a polyvinyl butyral (PVB) interlayer 5.
Col. 13, ll. 51-67. If the bus bar configuration of Sol ‘419 was replaced with
a current strip and bus bar 3 of Reiss, and bus bar 3 contacted opaque layer
51 of Sol ‘419, as proposed by the Examiner, it is not clear how the bus bar
would cause current to flow through conductive coatings 3 as the bus bar
would be separated from the conductive layer 3 by the PVB interlayer 5 and
thus would not contact or extend into the conductive layer 3. Nor is it clear
why a skilled artisan would make such a modification when Sol ‘419 already
uses opaque layer 51 to obscure the bus bars 7, 9 from view without having
the bus bars 7, 9 contact the opaque layer 51 directly.
Figure 8 of Sol ‘419 and Figure 5 of Reiss are reproduced below:
App
App

of R
Clai
cure
We d
eal 2011-0
lication 10
Figure 8
eiss is a cr
We do n
m 13 unpa
Sol ‘619
any defici
o not sust
We REV
09149
/956,371
of Sol ‘41
oss-section
ot sustain
tentable o
is relied o
encies of S
ain the rej
ERSE the
9 is a cros
al view o
the rejecti
ver Sol ‘41
n for featu
ol ‘419, R
ection of c
DE
rejection
RE
5
s-sectiona
f a fourth e
on of claim
9, Reiss, L
res of dep
eiss, or Ly
laim 13.
CISION
of claims

VERSED

l view of a
mbodime
s 1, 2, 4-1
ynam, and
endent cla
nam as to
1, 2, 4-11,
window.
nt.
1, 14, and
Sol ‘619
im 13 and
claim 1.
13, 14, an

Figure 5
18-22.

not to
Ans. 10.
d 18-22.
Appeal 2011-009149
Application 10/956,371

6
mls