Appeal No. 2005-1161 Page 4
Application No. 09/793,406
The Examiner acknowledges that the difference between the low-E coating of Hartig
‘933 and that claimed resides in the chemical composition of the layer between the transparent
dielectric layer (TiO2) and the nickel or nichrome layer (Ni or Ni:Cr): In Hartig ‘933, the layer is
composed of Si3Ni4 whereas claim 1 requires a layer composed of SiOxNy (Answer, p. 3; Hartig
‘933, col. 7, ll. 14-25, see also Fig. 1A in combination with col. 12, ll. 38-45). The rejection is
based on evidence presented in Macquart showing that those of ordinary skill in the art
understood that Si3N4 and SiOxNy both act as barrier layers in low-E coatings and that either
composition can be used in such coatings (Answer, pp. 3-4; Macquart, col. 3, ll. 29-34). From
this evidence, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to have used SiOxNy in place of Si3N4 in the low-E coating of Hartig ‘933 (Answer, p. 4).
Appellant’s main argument is that, when following the teachings of Macquart, one of
ordinary skill in the art would place the SiOxNy layer directly on the glass substrate and not
between at least a layer of dielectric material and a layer comprising nickel and/or nichrome as
required by claim 1. This is because, according to Appellant, Macquart places the SiOxNy layer
in direct contact with the glass in order to prevent diffusion of alkalines from the glass itself into
the entire coating during heat treatment. Appellant cites column 7, lines 64-67 of Macquart in
support of this interpretation of the reference.
We cannot agree with Appellant’s interpretation of Macquart. It is not the entire coating
which is intended to be protected by the barrier layer, it is the silver layer within the coating, in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007