Ex Parte Wendt

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 28, 2013

12194814 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/194,814 08/20/2008 Karl-Heinz Wendt 1085-029 A 7326
96056 7590 08/28/2013
Florek & Endres PLLC
1156 Avenue of the Americas
Suite 600
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, ELIZABETH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1787
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte KARL-HEINZ WENDT
__________

Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,8141
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
19-26, 29-33, 36-41, and 44. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 This application is a continuation of application 10/724,574, which had
rejections appealed as was decided as Appeal No. 2008-002494 on June 24,
2008.
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

2
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to a coated glass that does not
require the colorant to be burned into the glass, but rather the colorant
coating would be applied and cured at room temperature (Spec. 2, 3). The
coating includes a polyacrylate lacquer (Spec. 2). The coating is said to
provide better fireproof glass as the coating application temperature does not
subject the glass to high heat treatment (Spec. 11). Also, the coating may
include a lacquer coating in addition to the polyacrylate lacquer coating that
provides easier disinfecting properties to the glass, which is desirable for
glass used in hospitals (Spec. 11).
Claims 19 is illustrative:
19. A glass body with coated surface, characterized in that the
coating is based on an isocyanate-cured polyacrylate lacquer
comprising mineral particles, a hardener and a solvent and is a
permanent, moisture-resistant coating wherein the cured coating
has a layer thickness of 10 to 50 µm, the mineral particles have
an average diameter of 2 to 30 µm, the coated glass body is
translucent, the glass body is a glass pane and the coated glass
body is
a. a fire-resistant glass of fireproof class F or G or a fire-
resistant glass borosilicate glass comprising about 7% to
15% w/w boron oxide;

b. a single-sheet safety glass (ESG), wherein the coated
single-sheet safety glass has a surface tension that is
approximately the same or maximally reduced by 10%
relative to the uncoated glass;

c. a glass pane for use in areas where the glass pane must
be disinfected/sterilized; or

d. an illuminated display or illuminated billboard in the
form of a mineral glass pane; and

Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

3
wherein all procedural steps required for applying the coating
take place at 50°C or below.

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 19-26, 29-33, 36, 38-41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the
invention.
2. Claims 19-26, 29-31, 36-38, 41, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Komoto (US 6,022,919, issued Feb.
8, 2000) in view of Suchow (US 2,989,411, issued June 20, 1961).
3. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Komoto in view of Suchow and the Encyclopedia of Crafts
(Designing with bought stencils, Marshall Cavendish Ltd., 212-215
(1978)).
4. Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Komoto in view of Suchow and Ellenson (US 2,969,328, issued
Jan. 24, 1961).
5. Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komoto in view of Suchow and Kupenski (US
5,435,935, issued Jul. 25, 1995).

REJECTION (1): Indefiniteness
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the recitation that the
glass product is “translucent” in claim 19; that the recitation that the solvent
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

4
is required to have material that contains 6 to 10 carbon atoms in claim 36;
and that the recitation that the coating is permanent and removable in claim
33 render the claims indefinite? We decide this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSES
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the 35 U.S.C. §
112 rejection are located on pages 5, and 12-13 of the Answer. Regarding
claim 19, the Examiner concludes that under the broadest meaning of all
definitions of “translucent” it is not clear if the term includes films that are
transparent or semi-transparent (Ans. 5, 12).
Relying on definitions of “translucent” from Dictionary.com provided
in Exhibits A and B to the Brief, Appellant argues that translucent means
light is allowed to pass through an article diffusely and is scattered, which is
different than transparent (App. Br. 10-12).
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s provided definition states
that transparent is a synonym for translucent thereby showing that the scope
of the claims that include “translucent” is not definite (Ans. 12).
We interpret “translucent” to mean that radiation is impeded (i.e.,
diffused) but not prevented. This interpretation is supported by page 9 of the
Specification that differentiates Class F and G fire glass. Class F glass is
disclosed as turning “opaque” during fire tests and serves as barriers to
thermal radiation (i.e., the opaque layer does not transmit thermal radiation).
Class G is disclosed as remaining translucent when tested and thus transmits
thermal radiation in an impeded manner (Spec. 9). On page 11 of the
Specification Appellant discloses that the coating “scatter[s] sunlight” which
indicates that the light is diffused through the glass body.
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

5
Based on this disclosure, we agree with Appellant that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that “translucent” in the context of the
Specification means that light is transmitted diffusively through the glass
body. Thus, the term “translucent” does not render claim 19 indefinite. See
In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971) (definiteness of claim
language “must be analyzed—not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art”).
Regarding claim 36, Appellant argues that claim 36 is not unclear
(App. Br. 13). Appellant contends that based on page 4 of the Specification
it is clear that the solvent is composed of a hydrocarbon with an ester
functionality or a hydrocarbon with an alkoxy ester functionality that has
from 6 to 10 carbon atoms (App. Br. 13).
The Examiner responds that Appellant’s own arguments highlight that
claim 36 is not clear whether the hydrocarbon has 6 to 10 carbon atoms or if
it is the combined hydrocarbon and ester or hydrocarbon and alkoxy ester
compound that has 6 to 10 carbon atoms (Ans. 13).
Appellant has the more persuasive argument as page 4 of the
Specification describes that the primer/cleaner includes a hydrocarbon
having 2 to 12 carbon atoms with an ester group. Thus, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood that claim 36 recites that the cleaner
includes a hydrocarbon of 6 to 10 carbon atoms with an ester or an alkoxy
ester functionality.
Regarding claim 33, Appellant argues that “permanent” as used in the
claims describes a coating that cannot simply be removed by tearing or
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

6
peeling it off of the surface and will remain permanent in the normal course
of use (App. Br. 13). Appellant contends that “removable” in claim 33 as
understood in light of page 6 of the Specification means that the coating may
be removed by using a cleaning composition (App. Br. 13). We agree.
The Specification at page 2 describes that the coating would be
“permanent and weather-resistant, and would be completely removable.”
The Specification at page 6 describes that the coatings can be removed
without a trace by using a dichloromethane-containing paint stripper.
In light of the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood the “permanent” and “removable” terms in claim 33 to
mean that the coating is permanently affixed to the glass until removed by
using the particularly claimed cleaning solution. Thus, claim 33 is not
indefinite.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 112, second paragraph, rejections.

REJECTIONS (2) to (5)
Regarding rejection (2), Appellant argues the features of claim 19
(App. Br. 14-18). While Appellant states that claim 24 is argued on page 17
of the Brief, no arguments were made regarding the Examiner’s specifically
stated rejection of claim 24 (App. Br. 17, Ans. 7). We do not find that claim
24 is separately argued in the principal Brief. Rather, Appellant argues for
the first time the subject matter of claim 24 on page 4 of the Reply Brief.
Though Appellant states that they are responding to the Examiner’s findings
in the Answer, the Examiner made the same findings on page 7 of the Final
Office Action and there is no reason these arguments could not have been
made earlier. We shall not consider Appellant’s new argument raised for the
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

7
first time in the Reply Brief. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
(BPAI 2010).
Regarding rejections (3), (4) and (5), Appellant separately argues
claims 32, 33 and 39 (App. Br. 19-21).

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the combined
teachings of Komoto and Suchow would have rendered obvious the
subject matter of claim 19? We decide this issue in the negative.
2. Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the combined
teachings of Komoto, Suchow, and the Encyclopedia of Crafts would
have rendered obvious the masking film of claim 32? We decide this
issue in the negative.
3. Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the combined
teachings of Komoto, Suchow and Ellenson would have rendered
obvious a coating that can be removed without damaging the glass
surface using a halogen hydrocarbon-containing solvent as recited in
claim 33? We decide this issue in the negative.
4. Did the Examiner reversibly err in concluding that the combined
teachings of Komoto, Suchow and Kupenski would have rendered
obvious applying a disinfecting and or sterilizing medium to the glass
pane as recited in claim 39? We decide this issue in the negative.
5. Do Appellant’s allegations and evidence establish unexpected results
with regard to the claimed glass body? We decide this issue in the
negative.

Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

8

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Issue (1): Claim 19
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Komoto and
Suchow are located on pages 5-9 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that
Komoto discloses all the features of claim 19, including adding a pigment of
iron oxide to the clear coat composition (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner finds that
Komoto does not teach the mineral particle (i.e., iron oxide) size from 2 to
30 m (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that Suchow teaches using iron oxide
particles sized from 3 to 20 m in order to give clear lacquer a nacreous
color (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds that since the iron oxide particles would
be the same size and type as Appellant’s, the particles would intrinsically
provide the same degree of translucency as claimed (Ans. 7). The Examiner
concludes that using the coated glass in areas where the glass pane must be
disinfected/sterilized is an intended use, which must result in a structural
difference between the claimed invention and the prior art (Ans. 6). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use Suchow’s iron
oxide particles with a particle size from 2 to 30 m as the pigment in order
to give the coating a nacreous (pearl-like) luster (Ans. 7).
Appellant argues that Komoto and Suchow teach away from the
proposed combination (App. Br. 14). Appellant contends that Komoto
teaches that the inorganic oxide sol must have a particle size of not more
than 100 nm, which teaches away from Suchow’s larger particle size (i.e., 3
to 20 m) (App. Br. 14). Appellant contends that Komoto desires a clear
composition which teaches away from the colored, nacreous luster
composition taught by Suchow (App. Br. 15).
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

9
However, as found by the Examiner, Appellant’s argument focuses
solely on the inorganic oxide sol and clear composition portions of Komoto
without addressing the fact that Komoto’s composition may include an iron
oxide pigment (Ans. 13-14). The Examiner’s rejection is based on
substituting Suchow’s iron oxide pigment with a particle size of 2 to 30 m
for Komoto’s iron oxide pigment. Indeed, Komoto teaches that the clear
coat composition may include a pigment, in which case the composition is
characterized as an enamel (Komoto, col. 12, ll. 30-36; col. 13, ll. 63-67; col.
14, ll. 34-24). Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s rejection and we
do not find that Komoto and Suchow teach away from the proposed
combination.
Appellant argues that Komoto requires polymerization temperatures
of 60-150°C whereas Suchow embraces temperatures far exceeding
Komoto’s range (i.e., 1,100°C) (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 6). Appellant
contends that Komoto exemplifies that the enamel is baked at a temperature
of 140°C which may crack safety glass treated in such a manner (App. Br.
16). Appellant argues that the Examiner mistakenly did not give patentable
weight to the product-by-process claim limitation that the steps used to apply
the coating to the glass product take place at 50°C or below. Id.
The Examiner finds that Komoto teaches at columns 15 and 16 baking
temperatures as low as 50°C (Ans. 14). Appellant does not dispute that
curing is part of the coating application process. Rather, Appellant responds
that Komoto’s column 15 and 16 disclosures regard the curing temperature
is only one step in applying the coating to the glass and that Komoto further
discloses at column 7 polymerization temperatures that are at a minimum of
60°C (Reply Br. 6).
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

10
While Komoto discloses that the polymerization temperature is
between 60°C and 150°C, Komoto discloses that the polymerization is run to
form component (A) of the coating composition (col. 7, ll. 13-48). Komoto
discloses that after forming components (A) and (B), the components are
mixed together with dispersing agent component (C) to form the coating
composition (col. 3, ll. 13-40; col. 8, ll. 22-63). Therefore, contrary to
Appellant’s arguments, the polymerization temperature is not part of the
coating application process. Rather, the polymerization is done in order to
form the coating composition.
Appellant argues that Suchow teaches much higher temperatures (i.e.,
1,100 to 1,200°C, which would not have led one skilled in the art to use
temperatures less than 50°C (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6). Appellant’s
argument focuses on one embodiment in Suchow where the iron oxide
particles are embedded in the glass. However, the Examiner relies on
Suchow’s teaching of a lacquer coating with iron oxide particles of a
particular size, which is not addressed or otherwise shown to be erroneous
by Appellant (Ans. 7).
Appellant argues that even if Komoto and Suchow were combined the
teachings of the art would not have led one of ordinary skill to a translucent
coated glass body (App. Br. 16). Appellant contends that Komoto only
teaches a mirror which is not translucent as the back of the mirror does not
permit light transmission (App. Br. 17). Appellant contends that Suchow
does not cure the deficiencies of Komoto because Suchow fails to teach
coating glass (App Br. 18). Appellant argues that Suchow merely teaches
incorporating the iron oxide particles into a molten glass composition. Id.
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

11
Appellant contends that Suchow teaches using red/brown colored particles
which result in no translucency (Reply Br. 5).
Appellant’s narrow focus on one type of glass (i.e., mirror) misses
Komoto’s broader teaching that glasses may be coated with a pigmented
coating composition (i.e., enamel). In our view, the Examiner has
established that placing Komoto’s coating with Suchow’s appropriately
sized iron oxide particles on a glass substrate to yield a translucent glass
body would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Suchow
teaches that the resin material used to make the nacreous, pigmented coating
is translucent (Suchow, col. 3, ll. 45-50). Komoto further teaches that the
clear coating composition may be mixed with pigment (Komoto, col. 12, ll.
30-36). Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s finding that because
Suchow’s iron oxide particles are the same size and type as Appellant’s
mineral particles, the same level of translucency would have been achieved
in a glass body coated with the composition (Ans. 7, 15). Therefore, once
Komoto’s coating as modified by Suchow is applied to a glass substrate that
is not a mirror the claimed translucent glass body would have necessarily
resulted.
Appellant’s argument that the combination fails to teach applying the
coating to a glass pane that must be disinfected/sterilized (App. Br. 18), fails
to address the Examiner’s determination that such recitation is merely an
intended use (Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner that the resulting glass
body with the coating is capable of use in an environment where disinfecting
is necessary. Appellant has not argued otherwise.
The Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to claim 9.
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

12

Issue (2): Claim 32
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Komoto, Suchow
and the Encyclopedia of Crafts are located on page 10 of the Answer. The
Examiner finds that Komoto and Suchow do not teach using a masking film
to maintain surface areas of the pane that are uncovered with coating (Ans.
10). The Examiner finds that the Encyclopedia of Crafts teaches decorating
glass by using stencils to mask portions of glass in forming the designs (Ans.
10). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to apply the
coating of Komoto as modified by Suchow to a glass pane in the stenciling
manner of the Encyclopedia of Crafts in order to decorate a glass pane in a
clear and professional manner (Ans. 10).
Appellant argues that applying a masking film as taught by the
Encyclopedia of Crafts would have resulted in the masking film firmly
adhering to the pane because Komoto’s coating comprises polymerizable
monomers that would penetrate into the masking film (App. Br. 19).
Appellant contends that Komoto and Suchow require heat treatments for the
coating greater than 50°C which would destroy the mask. Id. Appellant
argues that removing the mask before heat treatment would not have been
possible because doing so would disturb the edges of the not fully cured
coating. Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive as no evidence has been
provided to substantiate the mere attorney argument that Komoto’s coating
would have destroyed the masking stencil taught by the Encyclopedia of
Crafts. Moreover, Komoto’s coating composition includes component (A),
which as noted in our discussion of the rejection of claim 19, is already
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

13
polymerized when used to form the coating composition. Appellant does
not direct us to any part of Komoto other than column 6 to support the
position that Komoto’s coating includes monomers. However, Komoto’s
column 6 disclosure is merely discussing how component A is made, but
does not indicate that a non-polymerized portion of component A is mixed
in with the final coating composition.
As discussed supra, Komoto’s curing treatment includes temperatures
as low as 50°C. Appellant has not established that operating at that
temperature would have destroyed the masking stencil disclosed by the
Encyclopedia of Crafts. Nor has Appellant established via evidence that
removing the mask prior to curing would have disturbed the edges of the
coating. Rather, the Encyclopedia of Crafts discloses that stencils may be
used with enamels if thin coats are applied of the enamel (Encyclopedia of
Crafts 212). Accordingly, we find that the applied art establishes a
reasonable expectation of success in using the stencils of the Encyclopedia
of Crafts to apply the enamel coating of Komoto as modified by Suchow.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has misconstrued the
teachings of the Encyclopedia of Crafts which teaches that adhesive foil is
applied to the glass pane before the coating is applied (Reply Br. 4).
However, Appellant does not direct us to where the Encyclopedia of Crafts
teaches that adhesive foil is required. Our review of the Encyclopedia of
Crafts does not reveal any requirement for adhesive foil.
The Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with
regard to claim 32.

Issue (3): Claim 33
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

14
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding claim 33 may be
found on pages 10-11 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Komoto and
Suchow fail to teach that the coating can be removed without damaging the
surface of the glass using a halogen hydrocarbon-containing solvent (Ans.
11). The Examiner finds that Ellenson discloses a solvent and halogenated
hydrocarbon-containing composition that removes a wide variety of coatings
such as lacquer and baked resins including acrylic resins from substrates like
glass (Ans. 11). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
that the coating of Komoto using the pigment of Suchow can be removed
with the composition of Ellenson since Ellenson teaches that the
composition removes acrylic resins from glass surfaces (Ans. 11).
Appellant argues that Ellenson does not teach the removal of
isocyanate-cured polyacrylate lacquers with halogen hydrocarbons (App. Br.
20). Appellant argues that Ellenson’s acrylic resins are not the same as
isocyanate-cured polyacrylates because acrylic resins do not contain
isocyanate crosslinks (App. Br. 20). Appellant contends that Ellenson does
not teach any coatings that contain mineral particles. Id.
The Examiner finds that Ellenson’s broadly disclosed family of
acrylic resins includes those containing crosslinking agents (Ans. 16-17).
The Examiner finds that Ellenson teaches that the solvent composition
removes a wide variety of coatings such as paints that include mineral
pigments from a wide variety of materials (Ans. 17). We agree with the
Examiner. Appellant appears to be arguing that because Ellenson does not
particularly disclose the specific acrylic lacquer claimed by Appellant, claim
33 would not have been obvious. However, the Examiner has provided
sufficient reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have turned to
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

15
Ellenson and the halogenated hydrocarbons disclosed therein to remove the
coatings of Komoto as modified by Suchow. Appellant failed to provide any
evidence sufficient to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.

Issue (4): Claim 39
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding claim 39 are
located on pages 11-12 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that Komoto
fails to teach covering the glass pane with a disinfecting and/or sterilizing
medium (Ans. 11). The Examiner finds that Kupneski teaches a
composition that provides streak-free cleaning and disinfecting of hard
surfaces (Ans. 12). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to clean the coated glass of Komoto as modified by Suchow with
the cleaner of Kupneski in order to clean and disinfect the panel while
leaving it streak-free (Ans. 12).
Appellant argues that Kupneski does not teach the property of the
particle-filled isocyanate-cured polyacrylate lacquer to act as a disinfectant
itself, or the fact that the coating is not harmed by disinfectants (App. Br. 20-
21). Appellant contends that the disinfecting property of the coating of the
present invention is a benefit not derivable from Kupneski (App. Br. 21).
Appellant argues that Kupneski is silent about the object of the present
invention (App. Br. 21).
As properly stated by the Examiner, Appellant’s argument regarding
the coating having a disinfecting property is not a limitation in claim 39.
Rather, claim 39 recites “wherein to the glass pane a disinfecting and/or
sterilizing medium is applied.” We understand this claim to include
applying a disinfecting medium to the coated glass. Komoto as modified by
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

16
Suchow and Kupneski teaches doing just that. Specifically, Kupneski
teaches applying a cleaning and disinfecting composition to glass. It would
have been obvious to apply Kupneski’s composition to the glass body of
Komoto as modified by Suchow where such disinfecting and cleaning is
desired or necessary. That Kupneski fails to teach the object of Appellant’s
invention is not dispositive as the rejection is based on the combined
teachings of Komoto, Suchow and Kupneski.
Appellant’s argument that Kupneski’s cleaning solution does not
necessarily disinfect is not persuasive (Reply Br. 5). Kupneski plainly
teaches that the cleaning solution also disinfects (Kupneski col. 1, ll. 63; col.
11, ll. 22-37).
The Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in
rejecting claim 39.

Issue (5): Unexpected Results
Appellant argues that the claimed coated glass body has unexpectedly
improved light transmission, disinfection, and chemical resistance (App. Br.
21-23). Appellant alleges that the coating of the present invention permits
the easy elimination of viruses and bacteria from the glass body (App. Br.
22). Appellant alleges that the coating can be used on fire resistant glass
without changing the properties of the glass (App. Br. 22-23).
The Examiner finds that Appellant’s argument of unexpectedly
improved light transmission is not described in the Specification (Ans. 17).
In other words, Appellant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the
mere attorney argument. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 646 (CCPA 1965)
(the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record).
Appeal 2012-003846
Application 12/194,814

17
Appellant’s argument of unexpectedly improved disinfection,
chemical resistance or that the coating can be applied to fire resistant glass
panels is also lacking specific evidence to substantiate the mere attorney
argument. With regard to the fire resistance, Appellant broadly refers to the
Specification as evidence of unexpected results (App. Br. 22-23). However,
Appellant has the burden of explaining any evidence that supports a finding
of unexpected results and merely referring to the Specification is not
sufficient. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (BPAI 1992).
The Examiner further finds that the argument does not establish that
the similar coatings of the applied prior art would not have had the same
disinfection property (Ans. 18). In other words, Appellant’s arguments and
evidence fail to make a comparison with the closest prior art (i.e., Komoto).
On this record, Appellant’s failure to direct us to any evidence in
support of unexpected results and the failure to compare the claimed
invention with the closest prior art results in finding that the allegations of
unexpected results are not probative of nonobviousness. For the above
reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

kmm