Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
Sulcs notes that reflective coatings of Awhite metal oxides@ such
as zirconium oxide have been tried for this purpose but do not
adhere well to the lamp [column 1, lines 59-62]. A white metal
oxide is not transparent as argued by the examiner because it
must reflect all visible wavelengths in order to appear white.
Thus, contrary to what the examiner asserts, the white metal
oxide form of ZrO2 used by Sulcs is reflective of all visible
wavelengths and is not transparent at all.
Inherency requires that a structure or function be
inevitably present. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82, 212
USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). The examiner=s reliance on the
transparency of ZrO2 as being an inherent property of the coating
in Sulcs appears to be not only a highly disputable fact but also
most likely an incorrect finding. Since the examiner has not
demonstrated that Sulcs discloses a transparent coating of the
type recited in claim 1, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
1 as anticipated by Sulcs.
With respect to claims 5, 8 and 14, the question of
anticipation concerns whether Sulcs discloses one of an interior
surface or exterior surface of the alumina tube having a continu-
ous coating of the oxide recited in each of the claims. Trans-
parency of the coating is no longer recited. As we noted above,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007