Appeal No. 95-2718
Application 07/914,852
We now turn to the § 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11,
13-18, 21, 23-27, 29 and 30 over Moser. Like appellants,
Moser discloses a method of forming a metal oxide film on the
surface of a conductive tin oxide film by coating the tin
oxide film with a solution comprising a metallic oxide
precursor, removing the solvent, and converting the precursor
to a metal oxide film. Appellants contend that “Moser et al.
do not disclose or even suggest the use of tin oxide on glass”
(page 4 of Reply Brief). However, this argument is not
germane to the claimed subject matter inasmuch as claim 1 does
not call for a tin oxide film on glass, but rather, on a
substrate. Furthermore, at column 4, lines 1 et seq., Moser
discloses that a substrate, such as glass, is rendered
conductive by a surface coating by applying a conductive
coating prior to the solution of metal oxide precursor.
Although Moser teaches that indium tin oxide coatings are most
preferred, we find that Moser would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that a conductive tin oxide film can
also be used. We note that page 1 of appellants’
specification acknowledges that it was known in the art that
“[t]he most widely used transparent conductors are indium
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007