Patents

Decision Information

Decision Content

            Commissioner's Decision

 

Obviousness:

 

The circuitry and vision features provided by a pattern of metallic ink on a double

lens visor to obtain a defogging and deicing shield for a helmet were found to be

an advance in the art, and amended claims were accepted. Rejection modified.

 

This decision deals with the Applicant's request that the

Commissioner of Patents review the Examiner's Final Action on

application 514,732 (class 309-5) filed July 25, 1986, entitled

DEFOGGING AND DEICING SHIELD STRUCTURE. The inventor is

James M. Hollander.

 

The Examiner in charge issued a Final Action on May 3, 1989

refusing to allow the application to proceed to patent.

 

In reviewing the application, the Patent Appeal Board held a

Hearing on January 24, 1989, at which the Applicant was

represented by Mr. Kevin P. Murphy, the Patent Agent. Subsequent

to the Hearing, the Applicant submitted a letter dated

January 25, 1990 including an amended set of claims.

 

The invention relates to deicing means for a dual plastic lens

visor in a helmet. As depicted in figure 3 below, the visor has

a top 17, and sidewalls, not shown, all having grooves or channels

23 and 24 to receive the edges of, and space, weather lens 13 and

face lens 14, respectively, the bottom portions of the lenses

being joined as at 26. On the inner surface 25 of lens 14 a

pattern of circuitry 27 is printed using an ink having a metallic

content to provide the desired resistance and power, and the

vision, characteristics. Figure 1 shows the visor attached to a

helmet.

(see formula I)

 

In the Final Action, the Examiner cited the following references:

 

Patents

United States

3,027,561         April 3, 1962           Senne

 

Canada

1,011,792         June 7, 1977            Plumat et al

(corresponding to United States Patent 3,900,634)

 

Publications

"Double-Lens Vari-Shield"

Snowmobiler's Race & Rally, Winter 1978-79, page 12

 

Product Information Sheet

Hysol Conductive Silver Inks; Bulletin SP-140

(no. 140-18-Q)

Hysol Division, The Dexter Corporation September 1981

 

The Examiner considered these references in the following terms:

 

Senne teaches a face plate for skin diving having an

outer pane 16, preferably made of tempered glass, and

an inner pane 17, made of transparent plastic. The

inner pane has heating wires 70 to eliminate

condensation. (Figure 2 below)

 

                     (See formula 1)

 

The double-lens Vari-Shield is a curved injection

moulded plastic face shield for snowmobilers. An inner

and outer lens forms a dead air space between the

lenses. (shown below)

 

                  (See formula 2)

 

Hysol, a conductive silver ink, is formulated for air

drying for use on a variety of plastic materials. It

is designed primarily for screen printing. (No

depiction

 

Plumat et al teach a glazing panel with conductive

strips to keep the panel free of mist and ice. The

strips are applied by a cerographic technique. The

glazing panel may include one or more glass sheets with

the strips sandwiched in-between. (Figure 1 shown

below)

 

                        (See formula 1)

 

The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 49 in view of the Double-lens

Vari-Shield and common knowledge in the resistor/conductor art,

in .the following terms, in part:

 

 ...

As stated in the previous action, Senne used heating

wires embedded in a plastic pane, since silk screened

conductive lines, which were known at that time,

required an elevated curing temperature which is not

suitable for plastic material. With the development of

Hysol inks, which were designed for air drying on a

variety of plastic materials, it is obvious to

substitute this improved material for the heating

wires. There is held to be no invention in

substituting a material for a purpose for which it was

designed to be used.

 

 Applicant replied to the previous action, in part, that

he had not substituted a newly developed material for

an older material in a resistance heated face shield.

The conductive silver preparations are not newly

developed as is evident from the DuPont technical

information publication submitted here. They have been

available for more than 20 years, and in spite of their

availability have not been employed in the manner

developed by the present invention.

 

If the silver conductive inks are such an obvious

choice, then it is certainly surprising that they have

not been employed in the manner of the present

invention, even though there has been much development

in the art of protective face shield elements,

including defogging or deicing functions. The reason

 is, of course, that invention was involved in making

 the development, such invention being the subject of

 the present application.

 

 In the previous action the examiner also stated that

 screen printed horizontal resistance wires had been

 used since the mid-seventies on automobile rear

 windows. Thus the idea of using screen printed

 conductor to eliminate fogging was generally known in

 view of the widespread use of automobiles. The

 reference of Plumat et al is cited not as a new ground

 of objection but rather to support the statement in the

 previous action. On page 8 of the Plumat reference a

 common failure made of early screen printed conductors

 is described which consisted of local overheating and

 subsequent failure of the conductors.

 

 Applicant states that the DuPont preparation has been

 available for more than 20 years. He concludes that

 the use of screen printed conductors on face masks

 cannot be obvious since such inks have been around for

 a long time but have not been used on face masks

 before.

 

  Another explanation is that the air dying inks that

 were available were not suitable for the particular

 application applicant has in mind. Plumat et al

 describe reliability problems which occurred with early

 preparations. The Declaration of the Inventor,

 received November 9, 1987, states that a period of 6

 months was needed to evaluate the products of various

 manufacturers. The Hysol Product Information sheet

 clearly recommends the use of that ink for plastic

 materials.

 

  In summary, as shown by the references, double-lens

 plastic shields have been used for some time. Senne

 had taught the usefulness of resistance wires to

 prevent shields from fogging. When the Hysol product

 came on the market, which specifically points to use

 with plastic materials, it became very plain to use the

 ink in an improved application that had been thought of

 earlier with more complex materials. Applicant's

 efforts thus lack ingenuity and are better described as

 workshop improvements.

 ...

 

In the response to the Final Action, the Applicant argued the

 merits of the invention in the following terms, in part:

 

The invention in its broadest sense is concerned with

 an improved face shield comprising at least two spaced,

 plastic lenses, one of which has a surface imprinted

 with an electrically conductive circuit, in the form of

 a pattern of spaced, continuous, generally parallel

 lines. The circuit has sufficient electrical

 resistance to create heat effective to inhibit

 formation of fog, ice or frost upon the face shield.

 ...

 ...           

There are claims to specific embodiments in which the

width and spacing of the lines is such that they occupy

no more than 8%, per unit area, of the field of view so

as to provide a clear field of view, and claims which

specify the power density range for the circuit pattern

of 0.3 to 0.60 watts per square inch of the face plate.

 ...

 

The heating effect of the described Hysol ink is

evaluated in the accompanying Affidavit of

James M. Hollander, particularly in paragraphs 9 and

10, from which it is evident that the information in

the Hysol publication is not of assistance in the

present invention. Utilization of the criteria

identified in the Hysol publication, for example, the

resistance figure in ohm/inch would result in a heating

effect which would melt the plastic or the ink line

would immediately "open-circuit".

...

 

...The preparations employed by Plumat comprise a paste

of tiny glass particles mixed with conductive metals

for silk screening on glass substrates, with the glass

being "fired" in order to melt the glass particles of

the paste so that they will fuse to the glass

substrate. The problems identified by Plumat at page 2

are the difficulty in obtaining uniformity and

reproducibility in mass production manufacture, without

resort ing to complex and expensive production methods.

Plumat does not teach air drying inks at all and the

problems associated with pastes of the kind with which

Plumat was concerned are irrelevant to inks such as

these of DuPont and Hysol....

 ...

 

The Applicant further argued in his submission at the Hearing

that the cited references did not suggest the invention, in part,

as follows:

...

There is no basis for the Examiner's position that

Senne used heading wires embedded in the pane because

silk screen conductive lines known at the time required

an elevated curing temperature which is not suitable

for plastic material.

...

 

...:The applicant in an earlier Affidavit has also

reported on his discussions with John Jandrey, the

Market Development Manager, Electronics Material

Division  of The Dexter Corporation, manufacturers and

sellers of Hysol conductive inks, in which Mr. Jandrey

indicated that the inks were not intended for low

temperature resistance heating application but were

intended to serve the electronics industry where a

conductive polymer film is required such as in the

repair of broken circuit board tracers. Mr. Jandrey

also indicated that the proposed Application on a face

shield seemed odd and totally unsuitable for Hysol

inks. This evidence directly contradicts the

"assumptions" made by the Examiner.

 ...

 

The issue before the board is whether or not the application is

directed to patentable subject matter in view of the cited art.

 

During the Hearing, Mr. Murphy presented a video showing the

effects on a plastic visor that had lines of the small dimensions

and material called for by the Applicant. The presentation

discussed the greater current that would have to be carried by

the lines as derived from the currents carried by the known

circuits in the art which were considerably greater than the

Applicant's. It showed that when such a greater current was

passed through the Applicant's circuitry, that current first

distorted the plastic due to the heat developed, then burned out

the small dimensioned metallic ink lines and broke the circuit.

 

Mr. Murphy pointed out the features of the Applicant's invention

that resulted from laying down a pattern of circuitry using

metallic ink having the characteristic of carrying only a small

current in comparison to the circuits and currents taught by the

cited art. Quoting from information he had obtained from General

Electric in 1984 with respect to work that company had done in

testing electric wires placed in Lexan plastic, he described how

it had been found that the plastic distorted when current was

passed through the wires. He likened the tests to an effort to

make a structure set out in the Senne Patent. He called

attention to discontinuance of the General Electric tests because

of distortion, bubbling, and optical problems that occurred in

the plastic due to the high current, and for these reasons he

pointed out the Applicant's invention was an advance over the

cited art.

 

Having the benefit of the information presented at the Hearing,

the Board acknowledged the presence of inventive matter in the

 application with respect to the circuitry and vision aspects

 provided by the metallic ink, and discussed the claims with the

 Agent to determine whether or not they defined the inventive

 features. It was found that some claims set forth the features

 that provided clear vision, but none defined the circuitry of

 metallic ink of such dimensions to obtain both the deicing, and

 the vision characteristics described by the application on page 8

 as being the invention, and shown as part of the presentation.

 Mr. Murphy requested time to prepare an amended set of claims

 that would reflect the proper scope of claiming, and the Board

 agreed. On January 26, 1990 revised claims were submitted, and

 amended claim 1 reads:

 

In a protective helmet and face shield assembly

 including fastener means for securing the shield

 releasably to the helmet and hinge means between the

 fastener means and the shield permitting relative

 motion between the shield and the helmet an improved

 face shield comprising:

 

 at least two spaced, plastic lenses providing a field

 of view , one lens defining a face lens and another

 lens defining a weather lens, a surface of one of said

 lenses being printed with an electrically conductive

 circuit of an ink having a metallic content

 substantially throughout said field of view, said

 circuit being arranged upon said surface in accordance

 with a pattern of spaced, continuous, generally

 parallel lines, said lines at maximum width and minimum

 spacing occupying no more than about eight percent

 (8%), per unit area, of said field of view, said

 circuit having sufficient electrical resistance to

 create heat effective to inhibit formation of fog, ice

 or frost upon the face shield, and said pattern of

 lines being effective to provide maximum light

 transmission and visibility therebetween through said

 shield.

 

The Board is satisfied that the amended claims define the

invention described in the application in terms that overcome the

cited art. Recommendation is made, therefore, that the

application containing the claims as amended after the hearing be

accepted.

 

M.G. Brown

Acting Chairman

Patent Appeal Board

 

I concur with the findings and the recommendation of the Patent

Appeal Board. Accordingly, I remand the application for

prosecution consistent with the recommendation.

 

J.H.A. Gari‚py

Commissioner of Patents

 

Dated at Hull, Quebec

this 23 day of March 1990

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.