I'll search the USPTO database and CAFC dockets for the specific patent number 11001037.

The initial searches confirmed the patent's identity via Google Patents and Justia, but the USPTO-specific and CAFC docket searches returned no results. Let me run additional targeted searches.

Based on my searches and the authoritative patent text provided, here is a concise summary of US patent 11001037 (US11001037B2).

US 11001037 B2 — Summary

Title: Composite pane having sun protection coating and thermal-radiation-reflecting coating

Assignee:

• Original assignee at filing: Saint-Gobain Glass France SAS (Courbevoie, FR)
• Current assignee (per Google Patents legal-event record): Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SAS, via a "nunc pro tunc assignment" recorded 2025-05-16 (effective 2025-05-05). Note: Google Patents flags assignee data as potentially inaccurate.

Inventors: Jan Hagen, Robert Besler, Valentin Schulz

Prosecution details:

• Application No.: US16/769,454 (U.S. National Stage of PCT/EP2018/078077)
• Filing date: 2018-10-15
• Priority date: 2017-12-05 (EP 17 205 439.7)
• Pre-grant publication: US20200384739A1 (2020-12-10)
• Issue date: 2021-05-11
• Legal status: Active; anticipated expiration 2038-10-15; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2024-10-30

Abstract: A composite pane includes an outer pane having an outer-side surface and an interior-side surface, an inner pane having an outer-side surface and an interior-side surface, and a thermoplastic intermediate layer joining them. Between the panes is a sun protection coating that substantially reflects or absorbs rays outside the visible spectrum (notably IR). On the interior-side surface of the inner pane is a thermal-radiation-reflecting (low-E) coating. The pane has a transmittance index A of 0.02 to 0.08, where A = TL_composite glass pane / (TL_low-E-coated pane × TE), with TL (light transmittance) and TE (energy transmittance) measured per ISO 9050.

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

The patent has 20 claims; the substantive independent claim is claim 1, with claim 15 as a separate use/method claim (it incorporates the pane of claim 1 by reference). Claims 2–14 and 16–20 are dependent.

Claim 1 (composite pane). A laminated glazing having:

1. an outer pane (outer-side and interior-side surfaces),
2. an inner pane (outer-side and interior-side surfaces),
3. a thermoplastic intermediate layer bonding the interior-side surface of the outer pane to the outer-side surface of the inner pane,
4. at least one sun protection coating between the panes that substantially reflects or absorbs radiation outside the visible spectrum (e.g., infrared),
5. a thermal-radiation-reflecting (low-E) coating on the interior-side surface of the inner pane, the coating containing a transparent conductive oxide (TCO),
6. overall light transmittance (TL) of 1% to 12%, and
7. a transmittance index A of 0.02 to 0.08, defined by A = TL_composite / (TL_low-E-coated pane × TE) per ISO 9050.

In plain terms: a vehicle-roof-style dark laminated glass that combines a solar-control (IR-reflecting) coating inside the laminate with a TCO-based low-emissivity coating on the cabin-facing surface, tuned via a dimensionless transmittance index so that the interior-side reflection stays low while total solar heat transmission (TTS) is minimized.

Claim 15 (method/use). A method comprising utilizing the composite pane of claim 1 as a roof panel of a vehicle (e.g., a motor vehicle such as a passenger car). This is the claim underlying the "use as a sunroof/roof panel" aspect.

Noteworthy Dependent Limitations (Claims 2–14, 16–20)

• Claim 2: Interior-side light reflectance < 6% at 8°.
• Claim 3 / 17: Sun protection coating is a layer stack with at least one metal layer (e.g., silver) between dielectric oxide/nitride layers.
• Claim 4 / 5: Sun protection coating either applied directly to the interior side of the outer pane, or on a carrier film embedded in the intermediate layer.
• Claim 6 / 18 / 19: Intermediate layer of at least one polymer film (PVB, EVA, PU, or copolymers), preferably tinted with 2%–80% TL (8%–36% preferred).
• Claim 8: TCO is ITO, Sb- or F-doped tin oxide, and/or Al- or Ga-doped zinc oxide.
• Claim 9: Low-E-coated inner pane alone has TL of 25%–95%.
• Claim 12: Preferred A-value ranges tied to intermediate-layer TL (e.g., A = 0.07–0.08 when the interlayer TL > 30%).
• Claim 13: Pane thickness 0.5–4 mm.
• Claim 14 / 20: Optional electrically switchable functional element (PDLC or SPD) embedded in the intermediate layer.

Search-Result Notes / Uncertainty

• I confirmed the patent identity via Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US11001037/en) and Justia (patents.justia.com/patent/11001037); both match the text supplied.
• USPTO-specific queries (patft/ppubs/Patent Center) returned no direct snippet results in my searches, so I could not independently verify USPTO bibliographic data beyond the Google/Justia records and the supplied text.
• CAFC 2026 docket search returned no results — I found no evidence of any CAFC appeal, IPR, or litigation involving US 11001037 in 2026. I cannot confirm any pending proceeding; the absence of results does not definitively prove none exists, but nothing in the searchable record indicates one.
• The current assignee (Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SAS) reflects the 2025 assignment record; the grant itself issued to Saint-Gobain Glass France.

The initial searches returned no relevant litigation results. Let me try more targeted searches on litigation databases.

The Delhi case concerns a different Saint-Gobain patent application (not US 11001037). Let me search more specific litigation databases.

Based on my searches, I have not found any litigation involving US patent 11001037 (US11001037B2). I checked multiple litigation-oriented sources and search strategies, and every apparent "hit" turned out to be a false positive. Here is what I found and why each result was excluded:

Search results and false positives

1. Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com): A site-restricted search for "11001037" returned no results.

2. General patent-litigation queries ("US11001037" + lawsuit/litigation/complaint/infringement): Returned no results.

3. PACER/Justia docket search ("11001037" + docket/PACER): The only hit was Edwards v. Integris Health Edmond, No. 23-6065 (10th Cir., filed May 8, 2023), where "11001037" appears only as a PACER docket-entry number (entry [11001037]: "Fee paid" on 05/23/2023), not as a patent number. This is a coincidental docket-entry identifier in an employment-discrimination appeal — unrelated to US 11001037.

4. Saint-Gobain-related court search: Two results, both unrelated to US 11001037:

   • Saint Gobain Glass France v. Assistant Controller of Patents (Delhi High Court, judgment Sept. 11, 2025) — concerns the refusal of an Indian patent application for "Material comprising a stack of thin layers" on obviousness grounds. Different jurisdiction, different patent, different subject matter.
   • US 2023/0258995 A1 ("Composite pane having electrically controllable optical properties") — a different Saint-Gobain patent application publication, not US 11001037.

5. A raw search for "11001037 patent litigation" returned only an irrelevant Sanskrit-text PDF (Mahabharata verse numbering coincidentally includes "11001037").

Conclusion

No litigation (district court, CAFC, ITC, or post-grant proceeding such as IPR/PGR) involving US patent 11001037 was identified. There is no evidence of any pending or concluded case naming US 11001037 as of April 26, 2026.

Caveat on confidence: My search tools returned no relevant results, and the earlier CAFC docket check was likewise empty, but absence from these searchable indexes does not definitively prove that no proceeding exists — particularly for cases filed only in PACER-paywalled district courts or proceedings not indexed by the free sources I could query. If you need a definitive clearance, the next steps would be a paid PACER nationwide case-search by patent number, a check of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for IPRs/PGRs, and a review of the USPTO Assignment/legal-status record (which currently shows only the 2025 "nunc pro tunc" assignment to Saint-Gobain Sekurit France and the 2024 maintenance-fee payment — no litigation flags).

Proceedings overview

There is exactly one AIA trial proceeding on US 11001037 currently on file: IPR2026-00462, filed 2026-08-21 by Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd et al. against Saint-Gobain, with status Pending — it is in the pre-institution phase as of today's date (the petition was filed the same day this analysis was run). Breakdown: 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denied, 1 pending pre-institution review. The bottom line for a defendant: the patent is completely untested at the PTAB — all 20 claims are still in full force, and the only proceeding is a brand-new petition that has not even been through the institution decision yet. There is no PTAB "hardening" or "softening" to rely on either way; the sole signal is that a major direct competitor (Fuyao) has put the patent in its crosshairs.

IPR2026-00462 — Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd et al. v. Saint-Gobain (Glass France / Sekurit France)

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319)
• Filed: 2026-08-21
• Status: Pending (verbatim from the USPTO Open Data Portal record: "status: Pending"; last modified 2026-08-21). Plain-English gloss: the petition was filed today and is in the pre-institution phase — no panel, no institution decision, no trial has begun.
• Judge panel: Not yet public. PTAB panels are typically designated at or near the institution decision; no APJ names have been published for this proceeding in any source I could search.
• Petition grounds: Not yet publicly available in searchable sources. The petition was filed the same day as this analysis, and no copy has surfaced on PTAB E2E, CourtListener, or secondary sources yet. I therefore cannot state which claims (all 20, or a subset) are challenged, what prior art is cited, or whether the grounds are § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, or both. Do not assume claim coverage or art until the petition is docketed publicly.
• Institution decision: None yet. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b)(1), the Board must decide whether to institute within 6 months of filing — due no later than approximately 2027-02-21 — unless the Director extends for good cause under § 314(b)(2) (up to ~2027-08-21). The patent owner's preliminary response is due 3 months from filing, ~2026-11-21 (37 CFR § 42.107(b)).
• Final Written Decision: None — not applicable. No FWD can exist for a petition filed today; if the Board institutes, the FWD is due within 12 months of the institution decision (§ 316(a)(11)), i.e., roughly 2028-02-21 at the earliest, extendable to ~2028-08-21 for good cause.
• Settlement / termination: None — none possible or on record at this stage.
• Appeal: None — there is no decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: Neutral-to-cautionary for a defendant. No claim has been canceled, so an infringement theory built on any of claims 1–20 is not weakened yet. But the petition is a live threat to the patent: if instituted and successful, the most-impactful claims (independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2–14 and 16–20 that narrow it) could be canceled. For a defendant today, the practical value is leverage and information: a sophisticated competitor has studied this patent and found grounds it believes merit review — worth obtaining a copy of the petition the moment it is publicly docketed, and worth considering as a basis to seek a stay if you are sued in district court.

Strategic summary

Claims status — CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. Every claim of US 11001037 — claims 1 through 20 — remains in force and untested at the PTAB. Independent claim 1 (the composite pane with the sun protection coating, TCO-based low-E coating, 1%–12% TL, and transmittance index A of 0.02–0.08) has not been challenged to a decision. Dependent claims 2–14 and 16–20 (including claim 15, the use-as-vehicle-roof-panel claim) are likewise untouched. Nothing has been canceled; nothing has been sustained; everything is pending or unproceeded. The only proceeding is IPR2026-00462, which has not even cleared institution.

Estoppel landscape. No estoppel attaches yet: § 315(e)(2) estoppel only arises after a Final Written Decision on the merits, and no FWD exists. Two adjacent statutory bars are worth flagging for any defendant considering its own challenge: (i) § 315(b) bars an IPR petition filed more than one year after service of a complaint alleging infringement of this patent — so if you have already been sued (or expect to be), the one-year clock is running and may have started; and (ii) § 315(e)(1) bars a petitioner who files a civil action challenging validity before filing its petition. If Fuyao's IPR is instituted and reaches a FWD, estoppel would bind Fuyao and its privies only — a defendant not in privity with Fuyao would remain free to raise any § 102/§ 103 ground, including art Fuyao raised or reasonably could have raised. Conversely, if you are aligned with Fuyao (e.g., as a customer or supply-chain privy), you would inherit the estoppel and should map your available art now.

Pattern signals. The petitioner is Fuyao Glass Industry Group Co., Ltd. "et al." — the "et al." indicates multiple named petitioners (likely Fuyao entities or affiliates), but the full petitioner and real-party-in-interest list is not yet public. This is not a defensive-aggregator filing (no Unified Patents-style entity in the chain). It is a direct-competitor attack: Fuyao and Saint-Gobain are global rivals in automotive glazing, and the parallel EPO record shows an active cross-border fight — Saint-Gobain (with AGC) opposed Fuyao's European HUD patent EP 3 187 917 B1; the EPO Opposition Division revoked it in December 2023 and the Boards of Appeal upheld the revocation in March 2026. Fuyao's IPR against Saint-Gobain's US sunroof-pane patent should be read in that light — likely a countermeasure in a broader commercial dispute rather than a one-off validity swipe. This is the first PTAB petition against US 11001037; there is no prior pattern of repeated IPRs by the same petitioner, and no PTAB-appeal history for Saint-Gobain on this patent (Saint-Gobain has a broader PTAB footprint through its Ceramics & Plastics entities, but nothing on this patent).

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the petition immediately. The moment IPR2026-00462's petition is publicly docketed, retrieve it from PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov — search IPR2026-00462) or the USPTO Open Data Portal. It will tell you: which claims are challenged, the exact prior-art references and statutory grounds, the real parties in interest, and whether Fuyao's challenge is built on the same art Saint-Gobain already distinguished in prosecution (the cited art of record includes DE 19927683 C1, WO2013/127563 A1, WO2013/131667 A1, and US 2016/0002100 A1). Do not litigate on the assumption the petition covers claim 1 — verify.

2. Mark the statutory milestones. Patent owner preliminary response due ~2026-11-21 (3 months from filing). Institution decision due ~2027-02-21 (6 months from filing; extendable to ~2027-08-21 for good cause under § 314(b)(2)). If instituted, the trial runs 12 months to a Final Written Decision (~2028-02-21 at the earliest, ~2028-08-21 with extension). A denial at institution would leave the patent fully intact and Fuyao free to pursue district-court validity challenges (institution denials are unreviewable on appeal, so the fight would move to court).

3. If you are a defendant being asserted against this patent today: (a) do not assume any claim is dead — all 20 claims remain enforceable; (b) check whether the § 315(b) one-year bar has already started running against you (it runs from service of any complaint alleging infringement of this patent, not just yours); (c) consider whether a district-court stay motion tied to IPR2026-00462 is viable — stay practice favors defendants when an IPR is instituted, but at this pre-institution stage many courts wait for the institution decision; and (d) begin your own prior-art sweep now, because if Fuyao's IPR is denied institution or settles, you cannot rely on it and your independent grounds (plus the § 315(e)(2) freedom you retain as a non-privy) will be your only PTAB route — and the one-year clock from service does not pause.

4. If no further PTAB activity appears in the coming months, do not read that as weakness — this patent was only first challenged on 2026-08-21. The absence of prior IPRs against a well-asserted, competitor-relevant patent (with an active assignee and paid maintenance fees) is consistent with the patent having only recently become a litigation/assertion target; the Fuyao petition is the first real test, and its institution decision will be the pivotal event.

Verification caveat: As of 2026-08-21, no Final Written Decision, institution decision, settlement, or Federal Circuit appeal exists for IPR2026-00462 or any other proceeding on US 11001037 — and I found no public copy of the petition itself in any searchable source. Every statement above about the proceeding's substance is therefore limited to what the USPTO Open Data Portal record shows (filing date, status, petitioner) plus the statutory deadlines that follow mechanically from a 2026-08-21 filing. If you need the petition's grounds before it is publicly indexed, it must be obtained directly from PTAB E2E or the USPTO.

I have reached the limit of my search tool budget, so I'll reconstruct the assignment record from the authoritative Google Patents legal-events data (which reproduces the USPTO Assignment records) and from the previously generated sections. I was not able to pull the correspondent-of-record names from the USPTO Assignment Center directly (it is an interactive application not accessible to my search tools), so I flag every place where that gap affects a finding.

Inventors

Pattern check: No unusual departure pattern. All three inventors signed over to Saint-Gobain Glass France in the recorded assignment (executed 2020-10-07 to 2020-11-01, reel 054550/0408) and remain in Saint-Gobain's inventor pool on later filings (e.g., the Sekurit assignee profile still shows Schulz). This is a normal employee-inventor chain, not a pre-fire-sale mass-departure signal.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent / original assignee: Saint-Gobain Glass France SAS (Courbevoie, FR) — the flat-glass and glazing arm of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain. The US application (US16/769,454, filed 2018-10-15 as the national stage of PCT/EP2018/078077) was filed by Saint-Gobain Glass France SAS, and the inventors' assignment to it was recorded 2020-12-04 (reel 054550/0408), pre-grant.
• Product line: Yes — the claims describe a laminated automotive roof/sunroof pane combining an IR-reflecting (silver-based) sun-protection coating with a TCO (ITO) low-E coating and a transmittance index A of 0.02–0.08. This is squarely Saint-Gobain's automotive glazing product line (sunroofs, panoramic roofs), which the group commercializes through its Sekurit automotive-glazing fabrication subsidiary.
• Current status: Operating. Saint-Gobain Glass France is a solvent, operating subsidiary of a large-cap public company (Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, Euronext Paris). No bankruptcy, no acquisition, no dissolution. The 4th-year maintenance fee on US 11001037 was paid 2024-10-30, consistent with a commercially valuable, still-enforced portfolio.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center record for US 11001037, as reproduced in the Google Patents legal-events data (the authoritative patent text supplied), shows exactly two recorded assignments. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record names for either from the Assignment Center interface in this environment; that gap is flagged below.

1. Executed 2020-10-07 to 2020-11-01 / recorded 2020-12-04 — Reel 054550 / Frame 0408

• Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
• Assignor: Jan Hagen, Robert Besler, Valentin Schulz (the inventors)
• Assignee: Saint-Gobain Glass France
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources — the Google Patents legal-event extract does not include the correspondent; the Assignment Center record could not be queried interactively. (No recurrence finding possible on this leg.)
• Context: Standard inventor-to-employer assignment, executed during prosecution (pre-grant, patent issued 2021-05-11). No NPE significance.

2. Executed/effective 2025-05-05 / recorded 2025-05-16 — Reel 071969 / Frame 0743

• Conveyance: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment
• Assignor: Saint-Gobain Glass France
• Assignee: Saint-Gobain Sekurit France
• Correspondent: Not retrievable from available sources — same limitation as above.
• Context: Internal corporate reorganization / IP-alignment transfer. "Nunc pro tunc" (retroactive) assignments of this type are routine when a group moves IP from the R&D/glass-manufacturing entity (Glass France) to the entity that actually commercializes the product (Sekurit France, the automotive-glazing fabricator). This is the transfer that made Saint-Gobain Sekurit France the current assignee of record, and it matches the "Current Assignee" shown on Google Patents.

No other records: No security agreements, no licenses, no mergers, no releases, no corrections are on the legal-events record. The only other legal events are the 2024-10-30 maintenance-fee payment and the 2025-05-16 nunc pro tunc assignment above.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11001037
    2017 : Priority filed in Europe
    2018 : US national stage filed
    2020 : Inventors assign to Saint-Gobain Glass
    2021 : Patent issued
    2024 : Maintenance fee paid
    2025 : Nunc pro tunc transfer to Sekurit
    2026 : Fuyao files IPR challenge

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only post-issuance transfer is from Saint-Gobain Glass France to Saint-Gobain Sekurit France (reel 071969/0743, 2025-05-16) — a named, century-old operating automotive-glazing manufacturer (Thourotte, FR plant; global Sekurit production network), not an "IP/Licensing/Holdings" LLC, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose entity. The assignee manufactures exactly the product class the claims cover (laminated vehicle roof panes).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Saint-Gobain Glass France nor Saint-Gobain Sekurit France appears on any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or Spangenberg entities). Both are operating subsidiaries of Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, a Fortune Global 500 industrial group.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / unverifiable. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record names for reel 054550/0408 or reel 071969/0743 from the USPTO Assignment Center in this environment, and the Google Patents extracts do not carry correspondents. This is a data-availability gap, not a finding. No correspondent-recurrence pattern can be asserted or excluded. (Flagged explicitly per instructions — the single most useful NPE tell is unavailable here.)

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Two transfers total, 4.5 years apart (2020-12-04, 2025-05-16), both within the Saint-Gobain group, with no chained LLCs, no shared correspondents (per limitation above), no rapid-fire conveyance sequence.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 11001037 has been identified (per the earlier litigation sweep). The 2025-05-16 transfer is not tied to any known complaint; the only 2026 proceeding is IPR2026-00462, a validity challenge against the patent by Fuyao (filed 2026-08-21) — i.e., the patent is being attacked, not asserted through a newly arranged chain.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Saint-Gobain is solvent; no Chapter 7/11, no estate sale, no Kodak/Nortel-style proceeding.

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to an NPE that asserts on the operating company's behalf; no SEC 10-K/8-K disclosure of any such arrangement. The chain stays entirely inside the operating group.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an operating manufacturer (Saint-Gobain Sekurit France), so this is the inverse of the neutralized-patent pattern — the patent is live and commercially guarded (maintenance fee paid 2024; competitor IPR filed 2026).

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain is a textbook internal corporate chain: inventors → Saint-Gobain Glass France (reel 054550/0408, recorded 2020-12-04) → Saint-Gobain Sekurit France via nunc pro tunc reorg (reel 071969/0743, recorded 2025-05-16). The current assignee is a large operating manufacturer that ships products embodying the claims (automotive roof panes with sun-protection + TCO low-E coatings), has paid maintenance fees, and is the target — not the author — of the only 2026 proceeding (Fuyao's IPR2026-00462). Zero NPE signals are present (shell transfer, known asserter, cascades, privateering, bankruptcy, defensive aggregation all absent; correspondent analysis unverifiable but no evidence of recurrence). The one caveat: no infringement suit by Saint-Gobain has been identified in public sources, so "assertion" is inferred from the operating-company chain, the commercial product fit, and the competitor attack — not from a filed complaint.

Verification: USPTO Patent Assignment Search — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 11001037; records at reel/frame 054550/0408 and 071969/0743). Correspondent-of-record details for both entries should be pulled from that interface to close the one open data gap in this analysis.

The initial searches confirmed several key references. Let me continue researching the remaining citations listed on US 11001037.

I've reached the tool-step limit for this session, so I'll now synthesize the prior-art analysis from the authoritative patent text supplied, the USPTO/Google Patents/Justia records, and the searches completed above. Where a reference's full text was not retrievable in this session, I flag it explicitly rather than fabricate details.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11001037 B2 ("Composite pane having sun protection coating and thermal-radiation-reflecting coating")

1. USPTO database search confirmation

A site-restricted USPTO query for 11001037 returned no snippet results in this session (the query returned an empty set). The patent's identity is nevertheless confirmed from the authoritative text supplied and the Google Patents / Justia records (patents.google.com/patent/US11001037/en; patents.justia.com/patent/11001037), which agree on: US11001037B2, application US16/769,454 (national stage of PCT/EP2018/078077), priority 2017-12-05 (EP 17 205 439.7), issue 2021-05-11. No similar-numbered patent was conflated; the analysis below is specific to US11001037B2.

Effective filing date for § 102 purposes: 2017-12-05 (earliest priority). Because the application has an effective filing date after 2013-03-16, the AIA framework applies: any reference that was "patented, described in a printed publication, or otherwise available to the public" before 2017-12-05 is § 102(a)(1) prior art. Every reference cited on the face of US11001037 qualifies as § 102(a)(1) art (all published no later than 2016-01-07).

2. Element checklist for claim 1 (used throughout)

Overarching finding: E7 — the transmittance index A, a dimensionless parameter newly defined by this patent — is not disclosed in, and almost certainly not inherent in, any cited reference. Likewise E6 (TL of 1–12%) is only approached, not met, by the closest references. Consequently, no cited reference, standing alone, fully anticipates claim 1 or any claim that incorporates it (claims 2–14, 16–20 depend on claim 1; claim 15 incorporates claim 1 by reference). The analysis below therefore identifies, for each reference, which elements it does put in the prior art and which claims/elements it "potentially anticipates" in the partial sense, plus its value as a § 103 primary reference. A true anticipation challenge would have to rely on inherency of E6/E7, which the record does not support for these references.

3. Per-reference analysis

3.1 DE 19927683 C1 — the closest single reference

• Full citation: DE 199 27 683 C1, "Verbundglasscheibe" (Laminated glass pane reflecting sun and heat rays), Sekurit Saint-Gobain Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG. Priority 1999-06-17; granted/published 2001-01-25. Family: EP 1 060 876 B1 (priority DE 19927683, 1999-06-17; EP filed 2000-06-14).
• Description: Composite glass pane of at least two glass panes joined by a transparent thermoplastic composite layer, carrying a sun protection layer that substantially reflects radiation outside the visible spectrum (in particular IR; a silver-based layer stack with metal-oxide/nitride dielectric layers, e.g., AlN/Si₃N₄), and a further transparent low-E coating on the surface facing the interior space, spatially separated from the sun protection layer. Per the EP family abstract, the thermal-radiation-reflecting layer is a doped metal oxide — specifically fluorine-doped tin oxide (F:SnO₂), deposited by pyrolysis — i.e., a TCO. This is the document the patent itself names as the "generic part of claim 1."
• § 102 assessment: Discloses E1, E2, E3, E4, E5 (F:SnO₂ is a transparent conductive oxide within claim 1's TCO limitation). Missing: E6 — the patent's own description states the DE pane's light transmittance is, for example, 31%, outside the claimed 1–12%; and E7 (A-index) is nowhere disclosed. → Does not fully anticipate claim 1 as disclosed; the strongest § 103 primary reference on the structural combination (sun-protection coating inside the laminate + TCO low-E on side 4).

3.2 WO 2013/127563 A1 (= WO2013127563A1) — closest structural match on the low-E side

• Full citation: WO 2013/127563 A1, "Composite pane having a sun protection and a heat protection function," Saint-Gobain Glass France. PCT/EP2013/050999 filed 2013-01-21; priority EP 12157067.5, 2012-02-27; published 2013-09-06. Family: EP 2 819 844 B1; US 2014/0377580 A1 (granted US 10,017,416 B2, Manz).
• Description: Composite pane with outer pane, inner pane, thermoplastic intermediate layer, a sun protection layer (containing at least one functional silver layer) on side II, side III, or in the intermediate layer, and a heat-protection (low-E) layer on the interior-side surface (side IV) whose functional layer contains niobium, tantalum, molybdenum, or zirconium. This is the reference the patent describes in its Background as "another composite pane having a sun protection layer between the glass panes and a low-E coating on the interior-side surface."
• § 102 assessment: Discloses E1, E2, E3, E4 and the placement of a low-E coating on side IV, but fails E5 — its low-E functional layer is a metal (Nb/Ta/Mo/Zr), not a transparent conductive oxide — and fails E6/E7. → Does not anticipate claim 1. Primary § 103 candidate to be combined with a TCO-low-E reference (e.g., § 3.3) for element E5.

3.3 WO 2013/131667 A1 — the TCO low-E reference

• Full citation: WO 2013/131667 A1, "Sheet with coating which reflects thermal radiation," Saint-Gobain Glass France. PCT/EP2013/050698 filed 2013-01-16; published 2013-09-12. US family: US 9,546,866 B2.
• Description: A pane/sheet with a thermal-radiation-reflecting (low-E) coating on the interior-side surface, the coating comprising a functional layer of a transparent conductive oxide (ITO and related TCOs), with dielectric layers above and below to render the functional layer antireflective; low interior-side reflection and emissivity. Named in the patent's description as the source of suitable thermal-radiation-reflecting coatings.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses E5 (TCO-based low-E on the interior-side surface). Missing: E1–E4 composite structure (single-pane focus; no sun-protection coating between panes as claimed) and E6/E7. → Cannot anticipate claim 1 alone; supplies the TCO limitation for § 103 combinations.

3.4 US 2016/0002100 A1 — TCO low-E (US family member)

• Full citation: US 2016/0002100 A1, "Pane with thermal radiation reflecting coating," Saint-Gobain Glass France. Filed 2013-02-20 (per the citation record); published 2016-01-07.
• Description: A pane with a thermal-radiation-reflecting (low-E) coating, functionally similar to WO 2013/131667 A1 (TCO-based functional layer with dielectric over/under-layers for antireflection). This is the most recent reference on the face of the patent.
• § 102 assessment: Same position as § 3.3: discloses E5 only; misses the laminated structure (E1–E4) and the optical-index limitations (E6/E7). Not anticipatory alone.

3.5 WO 2013/104439 A1 — sun-protection coating stack reference

• Full citation: WO 2013/104439 A1, "Transparent pane with electrically conductive coating," Saint-Gobain Glass France. Priority 2012-01-10; published 2013-07-18.
• Description: Transparent pane carrying an electrically conductive coating — a stack of metallic (silver) functional layers with dielectric layers — cited in the patent as a source of "suitable sun protection coatings."
• § 102 assessment: Discloses the E4-type coating structure (silver-based IR-reflecting stack). Missing: the composite pane assembly (E1–E3), the low-E-on-side-IV placement/TCO (E5), and E6/E7. Not anticipatory; art for the sun-protection-coating element in combinations.

3.6 US 2006/0182980 A1 — dark-tinted vehicle glazing with interior low-E (strong secondary reference)

• Full citation: US 2006/0182980 A1, "Solar control glazing," Pilkington plc / Pilkington Automotive Limited (Barton et al.). Priority GB 2003-07-11; US filing US 10/563,917 (national stage, filed 2004-07-09); published 2006-08-17. Related granted family: US 8,632,886 B2 ("Solar control glazing," Barton et al.).
• Description: Vehicle glazing comprising a pane of tinted glass (1.0–1.8 wt% total iron as Fe₂O₃, 100–270 ppm Co₃O₄, <20 ppm Se; dark tint, VLT ≤ 50%) with a low-E coating on the interior surface; the low-E coating may include a transparent conductive oxide (optionally doped) or a metal layer with dielectric; a laminated embodiment has two glass plies with a (clear or tinted, optionally IR-reflecting) PVB interlayer; particularly suited as a roof glazing.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses E1, E2, E3 (laminated embodiment), E5 (interior-surface low-E, optionally TCO), and a dark-tinted glazing concept relevant to E6; use as a roof glazing (relevant to claim 15's use limitation). Missing: an E4 sun-protection coating between the panes reflecting/absorbing IR (the IR-reflecting option is in the interlayer material, not clearly a "coating between the panes" as claimed), and E6/E7 (the claimed 1–12% TL and the A-index are not taught). → Not anticipatory; a strong § 103 secondary reference for the dark-glass + interior-low-E combination.

3.7 WO 2006/043026 A1 — absorptive coating + interior low-E, low-VLT glazing

• Full citation: WO 2006/043026 A1, "Solar control glazing," Pilkington Group Limited. Priority 2004-10-18; published 2006-04-27. (Corresponds to EP 1 824 676 B1 / US 2008/070045 A1 family.)
• Description: Vehicle glazing (monolithic or laminated) with an absorptive coating (absorbing radiation >400 nm, providing privacy/solar control) on one surface and a low-E coating on the interior surface (emissivity 0.01 to <0.3), the glazing having visible light transmission of 20% or less and transmitted energy of 20% or less.
• § 102 assessment: Discloses E1/E2 (monolithic or laminated pane), E5 (low-E on interior surface), and low-VLT performance in the vicinity of E6 (≤20% disclosed; the claimed 1–12% window not specifically taught). Missing: an E4 sun-protection coating between the panes in the claimed arrangement, and E7. → Not anticipatory; relevant § 103 art on combining absorptive solar control with an interior low-E layer at low VLT.

3.8 US 2009/0046355 A1 — Pilkington vehicle glazing

• Full citation: US 2009/0046355 A1, "Vehicle glazing," Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH. Priority DE application 2006-01-06; published 2009-02-19.
• Description: Vehicle glazing (laminated automotive glazing with functional coatings). Full text not retrieved in this session; the citation record confirms assignee and subject-matter field (vehicle glazing).
• § 102 assessment (cautious): On the available record, no specific disclosure of the claim-1 combination or of E6/E7 can be confirmed. → No demonstrated anticipation; treat as background art unless the full text reveals otherwise.

3.9 WO 2008/155516 A1 / EP 2 167 436 A1 — bent, coated, laminated glazing process

• Full citation: WO 2008/155516 A1, "A method of production of a bent, coated, laminated glazing, and a resultant glazing," Pilkington Group Limited. Priority 2007-06-18; published 2008-12-24 (EP 2 167 436 A1 published 2010-03-31).
• Description: Process for producing a bent, coated, laminated glazing and the resulting product — i.e., manufacturing context for automotive coated laminates.
• § 102 assessment: Primarily method/process art. No teaching of the A-index (E7) or the specific TL range (E6); no evidence it discloses the claimed TCO-low-E-on-side-IV + between-panes sun-protection combination as claimed. → Not anticipatory; peripheral.

3.10 US 2010/0165436 A1 — RF-interference reduction for functional glazings

• Full citation: US 2010/0165436 A1, "RF interference reduction for functional glazings," Pilkington Group Limited. Priority 2007-07-03; published 2010-07-01.
• Description: Functional (coated) glazings modified to reduce radio-frequency interference — a coating/antenna-adjacent engineering issue, not a solar-control/low-E combination per se.
• § 102 assessment: No disclosure of the claim-1 structural combination or E6/E7. → Not anticipatory; peripheral.

3.11 WO 2009/029466 A1 — PPG vehicle transparency

• Full citation: WO 2009/029466 A1, "Vehicle transparency," PPG Industries Ohio, Inc. Priority 2007-08-24; published 2009-03-05.
• Description: Vehicle transparency (automotive glazing) with solar-control coating(s). Full text not retrieved in this session.
• § 102 assessment (cautious): On the available record, no disclosure of the claim-1 combination or E6/E7 is confirmed. → No demonstrated anticipation; § 103 background art for solar-control-coated vehicle glazings.

3.12 US 2015/0151675 A1 — AGC sunroof with lighting

• Full citation: US 2015/0151675 A1, "Sunroof comprising lighting means," AGC Glass Europe. Priority EP 2012-06-19; published 2015-06-04.
• Description: A sunroof (laminated glazing) incorporating lighting means. Full text not retrieved in this session.
• § 102 assessment (cautious): Relevant only to the sunroof/roof-panel use context of claim 15; no confirmed disclosure of the claimed coating combination, TL range (E6), or A-index (E7). → Not anticipatory.

3.13 US 2015/0165965 A1 — AGC glazed roof with illumination and light-transmission control

• Full citation: US 2015/0165965 A1, "Glazed roof comprising illuminating means and means for controlling light transmission," AGC Glass Europe. Priority EP 2012-06-19; published 2015-06-18.
• Description: Glazed vehicle roof with illumination and controllable light transmission (related to switchable-functionality roofs, cf. claims 14/20 of US11001037). Full text not retrieved in this session.
• § 102 assessment (cautious): Relevant to the optional PDLC/SPD functional-element dependent claims (14, 20) only as context; no confirmed disclosure of the E6/E7 limitations or the claimed coating stack. → Not anticipatory.

4. Ranking of most relevant prior art

1. DE 19927683 C1 — closest single reference: discloses E1–E5 (including a TCO, F:SnO₂, low-E on the interior side) but with TL ≈ 31% and no A-index → fails E6/E7.
2. WO 2013/127563 A1 (WO2013127563A1) — closest on structure (sun-protection layer between panes + low-E on side IV) but its low-E is Nb/Ta/Mo/Zr, not TCO → fails E5/E6/E7.
3. US 2006/0182980 A1 (Pilkington) — dark-tinted laminated glazing with interior low-E (optionally TCO) and roof-glazing use → fails E4/E6/E7.
4. WO 2006/043026 A1 (Pilkington) — absorptive coating + interior low-E at VLT ≤ 20% → fails E4-as-claimed/E7.
5. WO 2013/131667 A1 / US 2016/0002100 A1 (Saint-Gobain) — TCO low-E coatings on interior surfaces → supply E5 only.

5. Bottom line on § 102

Because every claim of US 11001037 incorporates the 1–12% TL limitation (E6) and the transmittance-index-A limitation (E7), and because no cited reference teaches — and the record does not support inherency of — a pane satisfying A = TL_composite/(TL_low-E-coated pane × TE) within 0.02–0.08, no cited reference fully anticipates claim 1 or any claim dependent on it. The realistic attack on this patent is § 103 obviousness using DE 19927683 C1 or WO 2013/127563 A1 as primary reference, combined with a TCO-low-E reference (WO 2013/131667 A1 / US 2016/0002100 A1) and/or the Pilkington dark-glazing references — a combination strategy consistent with the grounds Fuyao would need to establish in IPR2026-00462 (whose petition was filed 2026-08-21 and whose cited art is not yet publicly docketed).

Confidence note: Full texts for US 2009/0046355 A1, WO 2009/029466 A1, US 2015/0151675 A1, and US 2015/0165965 A1 were not retrievable within this session's search limits; their § 102 assessments above are based on the citation record and patent-family knowledge, and should be verified against the documents before reliance in any pleading.

I have solid detail on the key Saint-Gobain references. Let me verify the remaining cited references (Pilkington, PPG, AGC, and WO2013/104439A1) before composing the obviousness analysis.

Obviousness Analysis — US 11001037 B2 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This analysis uses the prior art cited on the face of US 11001037 B2 ("the '037 patent"): DE 19927683 C1; WO2013/127563A1; WO2013/131667A1; WO2013/104439A1; WO2006/043026A1 / US2006/0182980A1; US2009/0046355A1; WO2009/029466A1; US2010/0165436A1; US2015/0151675A1; US2015/0165965A1; and US2016/0002100A1. All of these were published before the '037 patent's priority date of 2017-12-05 and qualify as § 102 prior art. I verified the content of the most probative references (DE 19927683 C1/EP 1060876, WO2013/127563A1/EP 2819844, WO2013/131667A1, US2016/0002100A1, and the Pilkington solar-control family) against live records; the analysis below is grounded in what those documents actually disclose.

1. Legal framework and the person of ordinary skill

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Graham v. John Deere, obviousness is assessed through (i) the scope and content of the prior art, (ii) the differences between the prior art and the claims, (iii) the level of ordinary skill, and (iv) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, a combination of known elements is obvious when the result is the predictable product of combining them according to known methods, when a design need or market pressure points to the solution, and when "obvious to try" applies to a finite field of identified, predictable solutions.

PHOSITA: an engineer or materials scientist (glass science, materials science, physics, or chemical engineering background, roughly 3–5 years' experience) designing laminated automotive glazings with functional coatings — conversant with ISO 9050 optical measurement, sputtered/pyrolytic coating stacks, tinted glass and PVB interlayers, and automotive roof-glazing requirements (sunroofs, panoramic roofs). This profile is consistent with the art of record: the same people (e.g., Jan Hagen, named inventor of both the '037 patent and WO2013/131667A1's family) worked across these references, which are all in the same technical field.

2. Claim 1 mapped against the prior art

Claim 1 requires: (a) a laminate of outer pane / thermoplastic interlayer / inner pane; (b) a sun protection coating between the panes reflecting/absorbing IR; (c) a thermal-radiation-reflecting (low-E) coating containing a transparent conductive oxide (TCO) on the interior-side surface of the inner pane; (d) composite light transmittance TL = 1–12%; and (e) a transmittance index A = TL_composite/(TL_low-E pane × TE) = 0.02–0.08 (ISO 9050).

The structural skeleton of claim 1 — a solar-control laminate with a low-E coating on the cabin side — is not new. DE 19927683 C1 (the reference the '037 patent concedes as the generic starting point) discloses every structural element, including a TCO (FTO) low-E layer, and expressly contemplates use "as a windscreen, a side window, a rear window or roof of a car." The remaining question is whether the two numerical limitations — TL 1–12% and A = 0.02–0.08 — are obvious refinements.

3. Combination 1 (primary): DE 19927683 C1 + WO2013/131667A1 (and/or US2016/0002100A1)

Disclosure. DE 19927683 C1 gives the full architecture: two glass panes joined by a thermoplastic layer; an IR-reflecting sun protection layer (silver between nitride/oxide dielectrics) inside the laminate; and a transparent, mechanically resistant low-E layer on the interior-facing surface, spatially separated from the sun protection layer. Its low-E layer is a pyrolytic doped metal oxide (FTO). WO2013/131667A1 discloses a sputtered TCO-based (ITO) thermal-radiation-reflecting coating — dielectric/barrier/functional/antireflection stack — designed precisely for the interior-side surface of an automotive pane, with improved bendability and corrosion resistance (emissivity ≤ 25%, preferably ≤ 20%, per EN 12898). US2016/0002100A1 discloses a TCO low-E stack with optional darkening layers, aimed at dark panes including roof panels.

Motivation to combine. The '037 patent itself describes WO2013/131667A1 coatings as "known" low-E coatings for side IV. A PHOSITA building a DE 19927683 C1-style sunroof laminate would have had every reason to substitute the newer, bendable, corrosion-resistant ITO stack of WO2013/131667A1 (or the darkening-layer stack of US2016/0002100A1) for the pyrolytic FTO layer of DE 19927683 C1: (i) same field and same function (thermal-radiation reflection on the interior surface); (ii) known benefit — ITO/TCO sputtered stacks survive the bending and prestressing that automotive roof panels undergo (US2016/0002100A1 ¶ [0006] emphasizes exactly this demand); (iii) substitution of one known low-E functional material (FTO) for another known TCO (ITO) is a textbook predictable-equivalent exchange. The TCO limitation of claim 1 is therefore met either literally by DE 19927683 C1's FTO or by the routine swap to ITO taught in WO2013/131667A1 / US2016/0002100A1.

4. Combination 2: DE 19927683 C1 + WO2013/127563A1 (+ WO2013/131667A1)

Disclosure. WO2013/127563A1 (EP 2819844 B1 / US 10017416) discloses the identical two-coating composite: a silver-containing sun protection coating on side II, side III, or inside the thermoplastic interlayer, and a heat protection (low-E) coating on side IV. Its functional low-E metal (Nb/Ta/Mo/Zr) differs from DE's FTO and from the '037 patent's TCO, but the reference is highly probative for three reasons:

1. It recognizes the design problem the '037 patent addresses — reduced light transmission is "frequently desired with side or rear window panes and, in particular, with roof panels" — and it expressly discusses tinting panes or films of the composite pane to achieve it (noting cost and iron-oxide corrosion drawbacks).
2. It proves that by 2013, the art knew the low-E-on-side-IV plus solar-control-inside-the-laminate combination was the default approach for dark roof glazing.
3. It provides an independent motivation to select among known low-E materials (silver, Nb/Ta/Mo/Zr, TCO) based on corrosion resistance, bendability, emissivity, and cost — the same selection logic that leads to the claimed TCO layer.

Adding WO2013/131667A1 supplies the TCO functional layer. This three-reference combination renders every structural element of claim 1 old, with only the numeric parameters left.

5. Combination 3 (supplies the dark-TL limitation): DE 19927683 C1 + Pilkington solar-control family (WO2006/043026A1 / US2006/0182980A1)

The 1–12% TL limitation is the most easily sourced. The Pilkington family (WO2006/043026A1, US2006/0182980A1, and their sibling US2011/0217535A1) is devoted to laminated vehicle roof glazings combining:

• tinted glass and/or tinted PVB interlayers;
• an absorptive/solar-control function;
• a low-E coating on the interior surface (emissivity ~0.05–0.4, explicitly including TCO-based coatings);
• measured light transmissions as low as 4.9%, 9.3%, and 10.1% (US2006/0182980A1, Table 5, examples 49–52 with low-E-coated laminates).

This is nearly the whole of claim 1 in one reference family, including the 1–12% TL window. The '037 patent's own background concedes the target: sunroofs and sliding roofs "require light transmittance between 2 and 10%." A PHOSITA combining DE 19927683 C1's structure with the Pilkington teaching that dark roof laminates (TL ≈ 5–10%) with interior low-E coatings were achievable and desirable would arrive at the claimed pane by selecting known dark-tinted components (VG10/VG20/VG40/TSA glass, tinted PVB — all pre-existing commercial products identified in the '037 specification itself).

The AGC references (US2015/0151675A1, US2015/0165965A1) reinforce the same point: sunroof/glazed-roof applications with controlled light transmission and thermal management were a recognized design space before 2017.

6. The transmittance index A — the only real battleground

The single limitation not found verbatim in the cited art is A = TL_composite/(TL_low-E pane × TE) = 0.02–0.08. Three independent reasons support a finding that this limitation is obvious:

(a) A is a mathematical restatement of a known design space, not a new structural feature. A is a dimensionless ratio of three standard quantities (TL_composite, TL_low-E pane, TE) measured per ISO 9050 — the very standard used in the prior art (e.g., Pilkington's TE/TSHT tables). For the claimed dark-sunroof space — composite TL 2–10%, low-E-pane TL 25–95% (a range the '037 patent admits, and DE 19927683 C1 itself discloses 55–85%), and a solar-control laminate's TE of roughly 5–50% — the resulting A values fall naturally into the 0.02–0.08 band. The '037 patent's own Table 1 confirms: the "inventive" examples are just the standard dark-roof combinations (VG10/VG20/VG40/TSA4+ inner panes × tinted PVB × silver solar-control coating × ITO low-E), each of which happens to compute to an A in the claimed range. A claim limitation that merely expresses a known design choice in equation form does not generally confer patentability (see In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699 (Fed. Cir. 1984) — reciting a mathematical relationship that is an inherent property of a known combination).

(b) The patent frames A as a routine selection variable. The specification states the "corresponding values can be suitably selected by the person skilled in the art to achieve a transmittance index A according to the invention" and that transmittance values "can be suitably adjusted through the selection of the tinting of the components." That is an admission that A is a tunable design parameter arrived at by routine component selection — the classic KSR "design need or market pressure" scenario. The goal it serves (interior-side RL < 6%, preferably < 4%) is itself a known goal admitted in the patent's own background: "Light reflectances of less than 6%, preferably of less than 4%, are not perceived as disturbing by vehicle occupants." Optimizing known parameters (glass tint, PVB tint, coating selection) to hit a known optical target is the paradigm of obviousness.

(c) "Obvious to try" with a finite, predictable field. Under KSR, where a known problem (interior reflection in dark sunroofs) has a finite number of identified solutions (adjusting the relative darkness of the outer pane, interlayer, and inner pane), the result is obvious. FIG. 2 of the '037 patent shows a smooth, monotonic trend — high-A panes (dark outer side) hold RL below 4% across a wide range of PVB tints, while low-A panes (dark inner side) do not. That trend is the predictable optical consequence of where the absorbing/tinting elements sit relative to the reflective low-E coating; the specification presents no criticality, no discontinuity, and no unexpected result at the claimed 0.02–0.08 window (indeed the table spans A = 0.02–0.08 with gradually changing RL of 3.1–3.9%).

Patentee's best counterargument (and its weakness). A skilled advocate would argue the A-range is a non-obvious discovery: that keeping A ≥ 0.02–0.08 (i.e., ensuring the composite pane's darkness is not dominated by the inner pane/low-E side) is what decouples interior reflectance from interlayer tinting, enabling one product line to span PVB tints of 8–36% while holding RL < 4%. The weakness: the specification nowhere demonstrates criticality or an unexpected technical effect at the boundary values; the comparative example (3.9 mm VG10 inner pane, A = 0.22) merely shows that a different component selection leaves the claimed range — i.e., the range is descriptive of a design choice, not inventive. The Comparative Example's RL of 3.1% is, notably, still below 4%, undercutting any argument that leaving the A-range produces a poor result.

7. Dependent claims 2–20

• Claims 2, 11 (RL < 6% at 8°): known benchmark acknowledged in the '037 patent's background as a pre-existing occupant-comfort target; achievable by the same tint/coating selection. Obvious.
• Claims 3, 17 (silver layer between dielectric oxides/nitrides): literally DE 19927683 C1 (silver between AlN/Si₃N₄) and WO2013/127563A1 (silver functional layer). Obvious.
• Claims 4, 5 (sun protection on side II, or on a PET carrier film in the interlayer): side-II placement is DE 19927683 C1 / WO2013/127563A1; the PET-carrier-film arrangement is admitted prior art in the '037 patent's own background ("a polyethylene terephthalate film between two polyvinyl butyral films") and in WO2013/127563A1's alternatives. Obvious.
• Claims 6, 18 (PVB/EVA/PU interlayer): standard; DE 19927683 C1 uses a thermoplastic interlayer. Obvious.
• Claims 7, 19 (tinted interlayer, TL 2–80%, preferably 8–36%): tinted PVB disclosed in WO2006/043026A1 / US2006/0182980A1; the ranges are routine selections for dark roof glazing. Obvious.
• Claim 8 (ITO, Sb/F-SnO₂, ZnO:Al/Ga): F-SnO₂ is DE 19927683 C1's own material; ITO is WO2013/131667A1's and US2016/0002100A1's material; ZnO:Al/Ga were known TCOs (noted in US2016/0002100A1's background). Obvious.
• Claim 9 (low-E pane TL 25–95%): DE 19927683 C1 discloses 55–85% for low-E-coated panes. Obvious.
• Claim 10 (composite TL 2–10%): the known sunroof range (patent's own admission; Pilkington examples at 4.9–10.1%). Obvious.
• Claim 12 (A-range laddered against interlayer TL): a parameter-optimization table of the type KSR treats as obvious. Obvious.
• Claim 13 (pane thickness 0.5–4 mm): standard automotive thicknesses (Pilkington examples: 2.1–3.1 mm; WO2013/131667A1 example: 2.9 mm). Obvious.
• Claims 14, 20 (PDLC/SPD functional element in the interlayer): SPD and PDLC films in laminated glazing interlayers were known (Pilkington's own PDLC/SPD interlayer filings are in the same art; Saint-Gobain's switchable-glazing family EA028935B1 / CA2893198C is cited on the '037 face); the '037 patent admits such elements "are typically used in combination with sun protection coatings." Adding a known switchable element to a known solar-control/low-E laminate is a predictable aggregation. Obvious.
• Claim 15 (use as vehicle roof panel): DE 19927683 C1 discloses roof use; the Pilkington and AGC references are roof-glazing-specific. Obvious.

8. Secondary considerations

Nothing in the record evidences the classic objective indicia: no unexpected results (the data show a monotonic, predictable trend), no long-felt need (the need for dark, low-reflection sunroofs was acknowledged in the art of record), no failure of others, no commercial-success evidence, and no copying evidence. The absence of objective evidence, combined with the '037 patent's own admissions (known structure, known TL target, known RL benchmark, and "can be suitably selected by the person skilled in the art"), leaves the obviousness case largely unanswered.

9. Teaching-away / counterarguments assessed

• WO2013/127563A1's criticism of tinted glass (iron-oxide corrosion, cost) is not a teaching away from dark panes; it points toward the very solution the '037 patent uses — tinting via the PVB interlayer and outer-pane selection — and toward TCO low-E coatings (which avoid silver-corrosion exposure on side IV). If anything, it reinforces the motivation.
• DE 19927683 C1's winter-comfort focus is not a teaching away from summer solar control; the '037 patent concedes the low-E layer performs both functions (reflecting heat back in winter, reflecting pane-emitted radiation outward in summer). Complementary, not conflicting.
• The A-index as a "new" parameter: courts routinely hold that a newly recognized mathematical relationship describing an otherwise-known combination does not defeat obviousness where the underlying components and goals are known (In re De Blauwe; KSR's rejection of "rigid" application of the teaching-suggestion-motivation test).

10. Conclusion and risk assessment

Claims most vulnerable: All of claims 1–20 are vulnerable to a § 103 attack built on the cited art, with the strongest case on claim 1 via:

DE 19927683 C1 (laminate + silver solar-control coating + FTO/TCO low-E on side IV, roof use) + WO2006/043026A1 / US2006/0182980A1 (dark laminated roof glazing with tinted glass/PVB and interior low-E coating; TL as low as 4.9%; TE/TSHT data per the same metrics) + WO2013/131667A1 or US2016/0002100A1 (bendable, corrosion-resistant ITO/TCO low-E stacks for side IV).

This combination discloses every claim element except the literal A-formula, which is a routine-optimization parameter (§ 6). A secondary combination — DE 19927683 C1 + WO2013/127563A1 + WO2013/131667A1 — reaches the same result from Saint-Gobain's own earlier disclosures, which is particularly powerful because the '037 patent cannot argue the art "teaches away" from its own prior filings.

Claims least vulnerable: Claim 12's laddered A-ranges and claim 14/20's switchable-element embodiment add the most unproven factual content, but both rest on known components and known parameter tuning; they would likely fall with claim 1.

Practical context. This analysis is directly relevant to IPR2026-00462 (Fuyao Glass Industry Group v. Saint-Gobain, filed 2026-08-21, pending pre-institution): the cited-art combinations above are the obvious template for the petition's § 103 grounds, and the A-index limitation is the pivotal issue the Board will likely focus on at institution. Given DE 19927683 C1's own EPO family (EP 1060876) was revoked by the EPO in 2008 — a signal that even the foundational reference was found wanting on validity grounds in opposition — the '037 patent faces a meaningful obviousness risk on the current record. Balanced against that, a patentee could defend if it can demonstrate unexpected criticality at the A = 0.02–0.08 boundaries or a surprising correlation with interior-side reflectance that the prior art neither taught nor suggested; nothing in the specification as written supports such a showing, and the disclosed data cut against it.