Appeal No. 95-2799
Application No. 07/799,806
equivalence of oxides and nitrides of aluminum and silicon as
protective layers for metal and dielectric coatings of
articles having glass substrates (see GB '428 at page 2,
second paragraph and page 4, last paragraph). Accordingly,
based on the disclosure of GB '428, we concur with the
examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to substitute appellants' nitride
protective layer for the oxide protective layer of JP '948.
Appellants make the argument that JP '948 "does not show
bending or tempering the coated glass, whereas the present
invention relates to a coating which has metallic properties
that are retained throughout a high temperature processing
step such as tempering or bending the coated glass" (page 3 of
principal Brief). However, as noted by the examiner, insofar
as the claim language "temperable" is simply a statement of
intended use that imparts no structure to the claimed metallic
coated article, this argument is not germane to the claimed
subject matter. It is well settled that a finding of
obviousness does not require that the prior art disclose the
same motivation as an applicant.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007