Appeal No. 1998-0758
Application 08/434,073
1986
THE REJECTION
Claims 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Preston in view of Nath and Feuerstein.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection. We need to
address only claim 9, which is the sole independent claim.
Preston discloses a process for providing the surface of
an electrical nonconductor with a thin, transparent
electrically conductive film (col. 1, lines 16-18). The film
is formed by cathode sputtering a metal such as indium or tin
in the presence of oxygen insufficient in concentration to
oxidize the metal completely, and then applying heat under
oxidizing conditions to substantially complete oxidation of
the metal, such that the film is transparent and electrically
conductive (col. 1, lines 62-70). “The value of the
electrical conductivity attained is dependent on the species
and thickness of the deposited coating, the colour attained in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007