Ex Parte Padiyath et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 12, 2015

11752368 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAGHUNATH PADIYATH and DOUGLAS A. HUNTLEY
____________

Appeal 2013-003543
Application 11/752,368
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 1 as unpatentable over Fleming
et al. (US 6,929,864 B2, issued Aug. 16, 2005 (hereinafter “Fleming”)) in
view of Matsunaga et al. (US 6,741,307 B2, issued May 25, 2004
(hereinafter “Matsunaga”)) and of claims 4, 6–12, 14–21, and 23 as
Appeal 2013-003543
Application 11/752,368

2
unpatentable over these references alone or in combination with additional
prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

We affirm.

Appellants claim a light diffusing solar control film comprising a
multilayer polymeric film and a light diffusing layer, wherein the light
diffusing solar control film has a haze value of 10% or greater and wherein
the light diffusing layer comprises particles dispersed within a binder (claim
1). Appellants also claim a light diffusing solar control glazing unit
comprising such a film (claim 12).

A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A light diffusing solar control film comprising:
a multilayer film that transmits visible light and reflects infrared light,
wherein the multilayer film is a multilayer polymeric film; and
a light diffusing layer or a light diffusing surface adjacent to the
multilayer film forming a light diffusing solar control film;
wherein, the light diffusing solar control film has a haze value of 10%
or greater, and wherein the light diffusing layer comprises particles
dispersed within a binder, and the light diffusing surface comprises a
textured surface, wherein the textured surface comprises a plurality of peaks
and valleys that are randomly or non-randomly placed.

The arguments presented by Appellants concerning each of the claim
rejections on appeal are limited to those advanced against the rejection of
claim 1 (App. Br. 5–10). Therefore, we will focus on representative claim 1.

Appeal 2013-003543
Application 11/752,368

3
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 and concomitantly the rejections
of the other claims on appeal based on the findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and rebuttals to arguments well expressed by the Examiner in the Final
Action and in the Answer. The comments below are added for emphasis.

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding the multilayer
film of Fleming corresponds to the multilayer polymeric film of claim 1 (see
Final Action 3) because Fleming’s multilayer film includes metal as well as
polymeric layers (App. Br. 6). In support of this argument, Appellants rely
on the Specification disclosure in paragraph 24 of a multilayer polymeric
film that includes a plurality of alternating layers of a first polymer material
and a second polymer material (Reply Br. unnumbered page 2 under the
heading “Remarks”).

Appellants’ argument is not persuasive for the reasons explained by
the Examiner (Ans. 3–4). We emphasize that Appellants fail to identify any
claim 1 language which excludes metal layers from the recited multilayer
polymeric film and that Specification paragraph 24 is not definitional and
therefore does not restrict the claimed multilayer film to one which excludes
metal layers. On the other hand, the disclosure of Specification paragraph
28 (“In such polymeric multilayer optical films, polymer materials are used
predominantly or exclusively in the makeup of the individual layers.”)
reflects that Appellants’ multilayer polymeric film may include layers of
non-polymer materials.

Appeal 2013-003543
Application 11/752,368

4
In contesting the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious to provide the film of Fleming with a haze value of 30% or more as
taught by Matsunaga in order to effectively control glare (see Final Action
4), Appellants argue Fleming teaches away from a film having haze by
disclosing that the phrase “optically clear” refers to a laminated article in
which there is an absence of haze (App. Br. 6).

Appellants’ argument is not well taken. As fully explained by the
Examiner, Fleming is not limited to articles which are optically clear as
evinced, for example, by Fleming’s express disclosure that “[t]he finished
glazing articles of the present invention preferably are optically clear” (col.
13, ll. 52–53 (emphasis added)) (Ans. 5–6).1

Finally, Appellants contend that “the combination of Fleming with
Matsunaga . . . is not possible” (App. Br. 7) and that “these teachings are
from different art areas” (id.).

Appellants’ contention lacks persuasive merit for the reasons detailed
by the Examiner (Ans. 8–9).

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

1 We reiterate the Examiner’s finding that Fleming teaches various
functional layers may be added to the multilayer film including a layer
having particles to add diffusion properties to the film (Final Action 3 citing
Fleming, col. 10, l. 62 to col. 11, l. 2).
Appeal 2013-003543
Application 11/752,368

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc