Ex Parte Laird - Page 2




               Appeal No. 2005-1161                                                                       Page 2                
               Application No. 09/793,406                                                                                       


                                                      INTRODUCTION                                                              
                      The claims are directed to low-emissivity (low-E) coatings on glass substrates.  A                        
               particular layer sequence is required by the claims.  Claim 1 is illustrative:                                   
                      1.  A surface-coated glass article comprised of a glass substrate and a multiple layer                    
               coating on a surface of the glass substrate, wherein said coating comprises:                                     
                      at least one layer comprising a transparent dielectric material adjacent the surface of the               
               glass substrate,                                                                                                 
                      a layer comprising nickel and/or nichrome, and                                                            
                      a layer comprising silicon oxynitride interposed between said layer of dielectric material                
               and said layer comprising nickel and/or nichrome.                                                                
               One material disclosed in the specification as useful as the transparent material is TiO2.  The                  
               claim thus encompasses a layer sequence of TiO2/SiOxNy/Ni or Ni:Cr on the glass substrate.                       
                      The Examiner rejects the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As evidence of                                 
               unpatentability, the Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:                                    
               Hartig et al. (Hartig ‘321)                         5,770,321                     Jun. 23, 1998                  
               Hartig et al. (Hartig ‘933)                         5,800,933                     Sep.   1, 1998                 
               Macquart et al. (Macquart)                          5,935,702                     Aug. 10, 1999                  
                      The specific rejections maintained are:                                                                   
                      1.      Claims 1-7 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over                     
                              Hartig ‘933 in view of Macquart; and                                                              










Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007