Appeal No. 1996-2055
Application No. 08/132,554
Mizuhashi, Nordberg) relied upon by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The other references relied upon by the examiner (Dockerty,
Jenkins) do not cure this fundamental deficiency.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain any of the rejections at
issue.
None of the basic references, taken singly or in
combination, teach or suggest that a continuous, permanent and
transparent barrier layer film (which is formed by exposure of
a glass panel to an atmosphere of an atomized or ionized inert
refractory material) can be used both as a parting agent
during a heat compaction treatment and as a permanent barrier
layer to prevent sodium ion migration during subsequent
processing steps and during operation of the ultimate LCD
product.
For instance, while Mizuhashi discloses a silicon oxide
layer which is deposited on a glass surface by techniques,
e.g. sputtering, CVD, etc, similar to those used by appellant,
and functions as a barrier layer to prevent diffusion of
alkali metal ions, we find nothing in the prior art of record
which suggests that this particular type of silicon oxide
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007