Ex Parte OdehDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 7, 201310956371 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation