Ex Parte 6,334,382 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

90012664 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
90/012,664 09/15/2012 6,334,382 B2 2663-009 8181
22850 7590 06/28/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
STORMER, RUSSELL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3993
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 SAINT-GOBAIN VITRAGE1
Appellant, Patent Owner
____________________

Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B22
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, DANIEL S. SONG, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Saint-Gobain Vitrage is the real party in interest (Appeal Brief (hereinafter
“App. Br.”) 1).
2 Issued January 1, 2002 (hereinafter “the ’382 patent”) to Noel Gourio.
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

2
The Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from a
Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–20 that are subject to
reexamination and stand rejected (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306. In addition to the Appeal Brief, the Patent
Owner also relies on a Reply Brief (hereinafter “Reply Br.”) and a
declaration of Mr. Pierre A. Chaussade dated March 18, 2014.
The invention is directed to an armored glazing for a vehicle (Title,
Abs.). Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and
reads as follows (App. Br., Claims App’x.):
1. (Original) An armored transparent partition,
comprising:
a substantially planar laminated transparent element
having at least two transparent layers extending substantially
in the plane of said transparent element, wherein said at least
two layers comprise two sheets of glass and an interpolated
adhesive layer; and
at least one rigid protuberance fixed to at least one of
said layers and extending, substantially in the plane of said
transparent element, beyond a periphery of at least one of said
layers, wherein said at least one rigid protuberance comprises
a metal insert is mounted between said two sheets of glass and
forms an extension of said adhesive layer, said at least one rigid
protuberance extending in the plane of the interpolated adhesive
layer and having a width substantially the same as a width of
the interpolated adhesive layer.

Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

3
The Examiner rejects various claims based on the prior art as follows:
1. Claims 1–3, and 5–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Demeester3 (Ans. 3–4).
2. Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Demeester in view of McKenzie4 (Ans. 4–5).
3. Claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McKenzie in view of Demeester (Ans. 5–6).
4. Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 11–17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Martin5 in view of Williams6 (Ans. 6–9).
5. Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Martin in view of Williams and McKenzie (Ans. 9–10).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

ANALYSIS
We note that only those arguments timely made in the briefs of record
in this appeal have been considered. Other arguments not made or those not
properly presented to the Board have not been considered and are deemed to
be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).

3 French patent document FR 2 612 174 - A1 published September 16, 1988
(citations to the full English translation of record).
4 U.S. Patent No. 3,624,238 issued November 30, 1971.
5 U.S. Patent No. 2,511,168 issued June 13, 1950.
6 U.S. Patent No. 2,464,540 issued March 15, 1949.
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

4

Rejection 1
Claims 1–3 and 5–7 stand rejected as anticipated by Demeester, the
Examiner finding that Demeester discloses every limitation of these claims
(Ans. 3–4). The Patent Owner disagrees and argues that in Demeester,
[the] rigid belt is countersunk and wholly contained within the
polycarbonate-adhesive-polycarbonate layered structure, [in
contrast to] the rigid protuberance of the ’382 patent [that]
penetrates into the interpolated adhesive layer but also extends
beyond the periphery of at least one of the layers of the glass-
adhesive-glass layered structure.
(App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 1).
We address the specific arguments of the Patent Owner against the
findings of the Examiner below.

Glass-Adhesive-Glass
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner finds that:
Demeester discloses a substantially planar laminated
transparent element having at least two transparent layers (8, 9,
10, 14, 15, 16, and/or 17) extending substantially in the plane of
said transparent element, wherein said at least two layers
comprise two sheets of glass (15, 16) and an interpolated
adhesive layer (10, 14, or 17; layer 10 is identified as the
interpolated adhesive layer in Ground 1).
(Ans. 13).
The Patent Owner argues that the Examiner erred because the
limitation reciting “wherein said at least two layers comprise two sheets of
glass and an interpolated adhesive layer” must be interpreted so as to require
glass-adhesive-glass layered structure, noting that the Specification of the
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

5
’382 patent only shows such a construction (App. Br. 7–8; see also id. at 5;
Chaussade Decl. ¶ 20; Reply Br. 3–4). The Patent Owner also argues that in
order for the adhesive layer to function as an adhesive, it must “be directly
between and in contact with the recited two sheets of glass,” or otherwise,
this adhesive limitation would be read out of the claim (App. Br. 8; see also
id. at 5–7; Reply Br. 3–4).
We are not persuaded because not only does the preamble of claim 1
utilize the open transitional term “comprise,” as the Examiner points out
(Ans. 12), the body of claim 1 recites “wherein said at least two layers
comprise two sheets of glass and an interpolated adhesive layer,” again
utilizing the open transitional term. Thus, the Examiner is correct that there
“may include other layers in addition to the two sheets of glass and the
interpolated adhesive layer” (id. at 12), and “claim 1 does not preclude
additional layers between the two sheets of glass, nor does it preclude
additional un-recited elements or layers between the interpolated layer and
either of the sheets of glass” (id. at 13). As to the function of the adhesive
layer, nothing in the claim language or the term “interpolated” requires the
adhesive layer to be immediately adjacent to, and in contact with, the glass
sheets so as to adhere the glass sheets together. All that is required is that
the adhesive layer be between the glass sheets.
The Patent Owner argues that the use of “comprise” merely means
that other layers may be provided beyond the glass-adhesive-glass
construction (App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3). While claim 1 certainly
does encompass other layers beyond a glass-adhesive-glass construction, it
also does not preclude other layers between the recited two sheets of glass.
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

6
Claim 1 does not recite or require direct contact between the interpolated
adhesive layer and the glass sheets. In this regard, as the Examiner noted
(Ans. 14), the Specification of the ’382 patent itself utilizes the term
“interpolating” to describe the provision of additional multiple layers
between glass sheet 6 and adhesive layer 7, thereby, demonstrating a broader
meaning of the term “interpolating” as not requiring direct contact so as to
encompass intervening layers (’382 patent, col. 3, ll. 1–4).
While a broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification
is utilized, we decline to import limitations appearing in a specific
embodiment in the written description into the broader claim language. See
Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). To the
extent that glass-adhesive-glass layered structure was intended, the Patent
Owner could have amended claim 1 to recite such a requirement.

Rigid Protuberance
The Examiner also finds that in Demeester, “[t]he rigid protuberance
comprises the metal insert 11 and the polyurethane sheets 12, 13, and is
considered to be ‘fixed’ to any or all of the layers in the transparent
element.” (Ans. 3, fn. 1).
The Patent Owner initially argues that whereas claim 1 requires the
rigid protuberance to have substantially the same width as the interpolated
adhesive layer, polyurethane layers 14, 17 of Demeester that contact the
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

7
glass layers are not the same width as the protuberance defined by layers 11,
12 and 13 (App. Br. 9–10). However, as the Examiner points out, the
rejection identifies the adhesive layer 10 as corresponding to the recited
interpolated adhesive layer (Ans. 16). The recited protuberance is satisfied
by layers 11, 12 and 13, which together, have the same width as adhesive
layer 10 (see id.). The Patent Owner’s argument presumes that claim 1
requires a glass-adhesive-glass construction, which is incorrect for the
reasons discussed above.
The Patent Owner also points out that the periphery of Demeester as
formed by layers including 8–12 is diagonal. The Patent Owner argues that
layers 11–13, which the Examiner identifies as a protuberance, do not extend
beyond the diagonal periphery (App. Br. 10–13 (citing dictionary
definition7); see also App. Br. 11, annotated Fig. 3 of Demeester).
The Examiner responds, inter alia, that:
[E]ven using Appellant’s specific definition of the periphery of
each layer, the rigid protuberance 11, 12, 13 of Demeester still
extends, in the plane of the transparent element, beyond . . . the
perpendicular faces of layers 14 and 15 as shown in the
annotated figure on the preceding page.
(Ans. 19).
The Patent Owner argues that the Examiner’s position is improper
because “layers 14 and 15 form part of the transparent partition” (Reply Br.
7), the rigid band of Demeester is described therein as being embedded or

7 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1993), cited by the Patent
Owner, defines “periphery” as “the external boundary or surface of any
body” or “the outward bounds of something as distinguished from its
internal regions or center.” (App. Br. Ex. B).
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

8
countersunk in the intermediate layer, and that claim 1 requires “at least one
of the two principle faces of the rigid protuberance . . . must be exposed
beyond the periphery of at least one of the immediately adjacent layers”
(App. Br. 13 (citing Chaussade Decl. ¶ 29); see also App. Br. 11, 14; Reply
Br. 6, 8).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim 1 does not require exposure of
faces of the protuberance beyond the periphery of an immediately adjacent
layer (see Ans. 19). Claim 1 instead recites the protuberance extends
“beyond a periphery of at least one of said [transparent] layers,” wherein the
transparent layer comprises a sheet of glass. Such configuration is disclosed
in Demeester by layers 11–13 that protrude beyond the periphery of layer 14
and glass sheet 15 (Demeester, Fig. 3; pp. 3–4). In this regard, we observe
that Figure 4 of the ’382 patent is of similar construction except that there is
no intervening layer between the glass sheet and the protuberance.
However, as noted, claim 1 does not preclude such intervening layers.
Furthermore, while Demeester may describe its rigid band as being
embedded or countersunk due to the presence of layers 8 and 9, that is not
dispositive as to the positional relationship relative to layers 14 and 15, the
illustrated positional relationship satisfying the broad recitations of claim 1.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–3, claims 2 and 3 not being
separately argued.

Claims 5–7
The Patent Owner separately argues that claim 5 is also
distinguishable because it recites that the protuberance “emerges beyond the
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

9
periphery of at least one of said layers.” (App. Br. 15). However, this
argument is essentially the same as that discussed above relative to claim 1,
and we agree with the Examiner that the argument is unpersuasive because
the protuberance defined by layers 11–13 emerges beyond the periphery of
at least one of the layers that comprises glass sheet 15. As noted by the
Examiner, claim 5 “does not require the protuberance to emerge beyond or
extend past all of the layers or the entire transparent element.” (Ans. 21).
As to claim 7, the Examiner finds that “[t]he protuberance 11, 12, 13
of Demeester includes a face which extends beyond a periphery of the
immediately adjacent layer 9.” (Ans. 21; see also id. at 4). The Patent
Owner argues that claim 7 is distinguishable because in addition to requiring
a protuberance that is not disclosed in Demeester, claim 7 also recites
“wherein the face of the rigid protuberance extends beyond a periphery of at
least one of said layers immediately adjacent the face,” and the immediately
adjacent layer must be glass instead of a polycarbonate layer as disclosed in
Demeester (App. Br. 16–17).
While we find unpersuasive, for reasons already discussed supra, the
Patent Owner’s argument based on the assertion that the immediately
adjacent layer must be glass, we agree with the Patent Owner that the face of
the protuberance does not extend beyond the periphery of at least one of the
layers immediately adjacent the face as required by claim 7. The
Examiner’s finding that protuberance 11, 12, 13 of Demeester extends
beyond the immediately adjacent layer 9 is based on, in our view, an
unreasonably broad interpretation of the limitation “protuberance extends
beyond” that is recited in the claim. In this regard, we generally agree with
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

10
the Patent Owner that “[t]o extend beyond a periphery, at least one of the top
or bottom faces of the rigid protuberance must lie outside of a periphery of
at least one of said layers” (App. Br. 14), which, in the context of claim 7,
must be the periphery of one of the “immediately adjacent” layer. We
disagree with the Examiner’s finding that protuberance 11, 12, 13 of
Demeester “extends beyond [the] periphery” of the immediately adjacent
layer 9. One cannot ignore the fact that the periphery of layer 9 is canted at
an angle, and that the periphery of protuberance 11, 12, 13 as defined by the
Examiner extends therefrom at the same angle so that it is flush with the
periphery of layer 8. While we are in agreement with the Examiner that
protuberance 11, 12, 13 extends beyond polyurethane layer 14 and glass
sheet 15 as discussed supra, these sheets are not “immediately adjacent the
face” of the protuberance of Demeester as defined by the Examiner.
Therefore, in view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 5
and 6, claim 6 not being separately argued. However, we reverse the
rejection of claim 7.

Rejection 2
Claim 9 stands rejected as unpatentable over the combination of
Demeester and McKenzie (Ans. 4–5). Claim 9 recites “[t]he armored
transparent partition of claim 1, further comprising a third sheet of glass
extending between said two sheets of glass.” The Examiner concludes that
in view of McKenzie, which discloses a transparent partition having four
sheets of glass, “[i]t would have been obvious for the transparent partition of
Demeester to include a third sheet of glass to increase the number of
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

11
laminated layers and strengthen the assembly” wherein either of two
interpolated glasses of McKenzie can be considered a third sheet of glass (id.
at 4, 23).
The Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have made the suggested combination because “McKenzie
teaches the insertion of a polycarbonate resin layer 3 between glass layers 1
and 2 to improve the performance of the bullet-resistant glazing, but not the
insertion of another piece of glass between layers 1 and 2.” (App. Br. 18;
see also Reply Br. 10). The Patent Owner also argues that in view of weight
considerations, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not add glass to the
structure of Demeester and that if there is any combination of these
references, a polycarbonate resin layer would have been added to Demeester
in view of the teachings of McKenzie regarding distributing impact force
and that polycarbonate is an essential component. (Id. at 18–19; see also
Reply Br. 10–11).
The Examiner finds that while polycarbonate may be preferred for
weight reasons, use of glass in aircraft windshields is also acknowledged in
Demeester in its disclosure that such windshields are made of glass and/or
plastic material, and its disclosure is also not limited to aircraft applications
(Ans. 23 (citing Demeester 1)). The Examiner also points out that
McKenzie also characterizes its invention as being a light weight transparent
structure (id. at 24 (quoting McKenzie, col. 1, ll. 1–32)) and that the ’382
patent itself describes the overlap between aircraft windshields and
laminated glass windows for vehicles (id., (citing ’382 patent, col. 2, ll. 6–
21)). Thus, the Examiner concludes that “those of ordinary skill in the art
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

12
could readily determine the number of sheets of glass to be used in the
laminated glazing, knowing that additional sheets of glass could add
stiffness even at the cost of increasing the weight of the glazing.” (Id.).
We agree with the Examiner. The Examiner’s findings with respect to
Demeester is correct in that it does not limit the disclosed laminated glazing
unit to aircraft applications, and it also discloses that the use of glass
windshields with or without plastic was known in the art, even within the
aircraft applications (Demeester 1). While inclusion of another glass layer
may increase weight as asserted by the Patent Owner, such disadvantage is
not dispositive. See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine.”); see also Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202
F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit
comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use
as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of
another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed
against one another.”).
In this regard, Demeester also explicitly discloses:
In addition to the two sheets of polycarbonate or
equivalent plastic material, the glazing unit according to the
invention may comprise other sheets (or plies). It may
comprise other sheets of polycarbonate and/or sheets of glass,
which may be tempered thermally, chemically or not at all.
(Demeester 2, emphasis added).
Hence, Demeester clearly teaches the inclusion of additional glass
layers recited in claim 9, if so desired, and establishes that it would have
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

13
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide additional
glass layers, if desired, depending on the application of the disclosed
laminated glazing.
In addition, while McKenzie discloses the important function of
polycarbonate in distributing impact force, it also discloses that:
Upon firing of a bullet against either outer layer 1 or 2
the subjected layer does not shatter but, may crack or fragment
upon the impact, with the energy thereof being transmitted to
layer 3 and spread thereby over its area, with further transfer to
the other outer layer of the now diminished force to effect a
complete dissipation of the energy without rupturing structure
A.
(McKenzie, col. 2, ll. 17–23, emphasis added).
Thus, McKenzie also teaches the function of other layers, including
glass layers, in further dissipating energy of the bullet, thereby, providing
additional reason to incorporate a third glass layer.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we are not persuaded
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 as obvious over the combination
of Demeester and McKenzie and affirm the same.

Rejection 3
The Examiner also rejects claims 1 and 10 as unpatentable over the
combination of McKenzie and Demeester (Ans. 5–6). The Examiner finds
that “McKenzie does not disclose a rigid protuberance,” but further finds
that Demeester teaches providing a rigid protuberance in a planar laminated
transparent element (id. at 5). The Examiner concludes that:
From this teaching[,] it would have been obvious to
provide the transparent element of McKenzie with a rigid
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

14
protuberance extending beyond at least one of the layers to
better secure the transparent element in its frame. As taught by
Demeester, the rigid protuberance could extend between two
sheets of glass and form an extension of an adhesive layer 6.
For the protuberance to further comprise a metal insert would
have been obvious as this would form a relatively stiff and
strong protuberance which would predictably be difficult to
force from the frame, and would predictably enhance the
strength of the transparent element when mounted in the frame.
(Id.).
The Examiner also concludes that “in adding a rigid protuberance to
the laminated glazing of McKenzie, those of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that the protuberance could or should extend beyond a periphery
of at least one of the layers of the glazing.” (Id. at 25).
The Patent Owner disagrees and argues that Demeester’s band 11 is
embedded so that the suggested combination does not result in a
protuberance as required by the claims (App. Br. 20–21). However, this
argument is unpersuasive for substantially the same reasons already
discussed above relative to Rejection 1 in that Demeester discloses a
protuberance that extends “beyond a periphery of at least one of said layers”
that comprises a glass sheet.
The Patent Owner argues that there is no motivation to combine
McKenzie with Demeester because, in McKenzie, the periphery of the
glazing is capped with frame member 8 to generally reinforce the structure
so as to block any rigid band from protruding, and in McKenzie, the
periphery of the glazing is straight whereas, in Demeester, it is angled (id. at
21). This argument is unpersuasive as well. McKenzie makes clear that
rigid frame 8 is optional and not required in its disclosure that “[i]t is
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

15
apparent that frame member 8 is not critical to the effective use of structure
A.” (McKenzie, col. 2, ll. 5–8; see also McKenzie, col. 1, ll. 38–40, 71–73).
In addition, the fact that the protuberance of Demeester is angled does not
detract from its combination with the glazing of McKenzie, considering
McKenzie does not disclose a protuberance at all.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 10 as obvious over the combination of McKenzie and
Demeester and affirm the same.

Rejection 4
Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 11–17, and 20 stand rejected as unpatentable over
Martin in view of Williams (Ans. 6–9). The Examiner finds that “Martin
discloses an armored transparent partition” having rigid protuberance 14
fixed to two layers 23 of Plexiglas poly(methyl methacrylate) sheet material
(id. at 6). The Examiner concedes that the two layers 23 of Martin are not
sheets of glass but finds that “Williams teaches an armored transparent
partition comprising a laminated transparent element having at least two
layers comprising two sheets of glass 15, 16 and an interpolated adhesive
layer 17,” as well as an extension 18 having a metal insert 19 (id. at 7).
Based thereon, the Examiner finds that the art suggests “resin panels may be
substituted for glass, and glass may be substituted for resin.” (Id. at 27).
The Examiner concludes that:
From this teaching it would have been obvious to
substitute a glass material for the resin layers 23 of Martin as
the glass could be more resistant to scratches or discoloration
from UV light, for instance. Moreover, those of ordinary skill
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

16
in the art would have found the substitution of glass for the
resin material to yield expected results.
(Id. at 7).
The Patent Owner points out that Martin discloses aircraft closures or
the like wherein sheets of Plexiglas material are “used as a substitute for
and in lieu of glass.” (App. Br. 23 (quoting Martin, col. 2, ll. 6–8); see also
Reply Br. 12–13). Accordingly, the Patent Owner argues, inter alia, that in
Martin, a person of ordinary skill is taught to replace glass with the Plexiglas
sheets, which is opposite to the combination suggested by the Examiner,
which replaces Plexiglas sheets with glass (id. at 23–24). Thus, the Patent
Owner argues that Martin teaches away from the suggested combination,
that there is no reason to make such a replacement (id.), and that the
Examiner is engaging in impermissible hindsight (Reply Br. 14).
The Examiner responds that because Martin discloses use of Lucite or
Plexiglas sheets, and Williams expressly teaches that these synthetic resins
as well as glass sheets may be used in its safety glass, the art teaches
interchangeability of glass and resin sheets so that:
[T]hose of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable
expectation of success in substituting glass for the Lucite or
Plexiglas of Martin in light of the teachings of Williams, at
least because Williams expressly teaches that glass, Lucite, or
Plexiglas may be used for the sheets 15, 16.
(Ans. 27–28).
We agree with the Patent Owner and note that the Examiner appears
to misunderstand the rejection applied, and does not fully address the Patent
Owner’s argument. The rejection is based on modifying Martin by replacing
its two Plexiglas sheets 23 that are immediately adjacent to, and in contact
Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

17
with, the interpolated bonding layer 24, with glass sheets 15, 16 of Williams.
However, as the Patent Owner points out, the teaching of Martin is that glass
should be replaced by Lucite/Plexiglas sheets disclosed therein (Martin, col.
2, ll. 6–8). There is no suggestion or teaching in Martin that any glass
should be used. Correspondingly, at least with respect to the primary prior
art reference Martin, a person of ordinary skill would not be led in a
direction wherein glass would be substituted for the disclosed
Lucite/Plexiglas sheets in view of Martin’s express teaching to replace glass
with Lucite/Plexiglas materials. The Examiner’s assertion to the contrary, at
least with respect to Martin, appears to lack rational underpinnings and
appears to be based on hindsight in view of Martin’s contrary teachings.
Therefore, we reverse Rejection 4.

Rejection 5
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 stand rejected as unpatentable over Martin in
view of Williams and McKenzie (Ans. 9–10). The Examiner finds that
“[t]he transparent element of Martin as modified by Williams does not
include a third layer of glass or a polycarbonate layer,” but relies on
McKenzie to cure this deficiency (Ans. 9). Thus, like Rejection 4, this
rejection is premised on substituting Lucite/Plexiglas sheets of Martin with
glass of McKenzie which is antithetical to Martin’s express teaching to
replace glass with Lucite/Plexiglas materials. Therefore, we reverse
Rejection 5 as well.

Appeal 2015-005943
Reexamination Control 90/012,664
Patent No. US 6,334,382 B2

18
ORDERS
1. Rejection 1 is AFFIRMED except with respect to claim 7, the
rejection of claim 7 being REVERSED.
2. Rejections 2 and 3 are AFFIRMED.
2. Rejections 4 and 5 are REVERSED.

Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

PATENT OWNER:
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:
LOWE HAUPTMAN HAM & BERNER, LLP
1700 Diagonal Road
Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314