Appeal No. 2001-1092
Application No. 09/169,490
and a ZnO film are successively deposited on a glass substrate by a
RF sputtering method (Answer, page 5).
The examiner finds that the differences between Miyazaki ‘969
and the claimed subject matter is that the reference is silent with
regard to (1) sputtering a metal target in a reactive atmosphere of
oxygen to form a metal oxide; (2) depositing a silver film with the
(220) peaks higher than the (111) peaks; and (3) depositing a zinc
oxide film with the (103) peaks higher than the other peaks (id.).
To remedy these deficiencies, the examiner cites Miyazaki ‘864
which teaches a low emissivity coating structure with alternating
layers of metal oxides and metal where the metal oxide is formed by
reactive sputtering in 80% oxygen (id.). The examiner further
finds that the “motivation for reactive sputtering [in Miyazaki
‘969]” is that it “allows for deposition of films with excellent
durability” (id., citing col. 1, ll. 42-45). From these findings,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Miyazaki ‘969 by
reactive sputtering the zinc oxide layer as taught by Miyazaki ‘864
“because it allows for deposition of films with excellent
durability.” Answer, page 5.
It is well settled that the initial burden rests with the
examiner to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007