Appeal No. 2006-0552 5
Application No. 10/167,160
metal (tin) from which the metal oxide of the doped coating (optically functional layer 18)
is derived.
Further, while appellants separately argue the ‘color suppression interlayer’
features of claims 18 and 20, this argument is adequately addressed in the examiner’s
answer (p.10).
Also, we note that appellants have proffered no convincing response to the
examiner’s assertions regarding the claimed surface compressive stress and claimed
sheet resistance values based on the rationale articulated in In re Best, 195 USPQ 430,
433-34 (CCPA 1977).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007