Ex Parte Athey et al - Page 2



                 Appeal 2006-2511                                                                                        
                 Application 10/693,463                                                                                  

                                                  BACKGROUND                                                             
                      The present invention relates to a coated article comprising a glass                               
                 substrate and a copper oxide and manganese oxide coating over the                                       
                 substrate.  The claim specifies that the copper-containing component and the                            
                 manganese-containing component are present in an amount that provides a                                 
                 blue color in transmission.  The Specification, page 3, discloses that if the                           
                 copper component and the manganese component are not present in the                                     
                 appropriate ratios the color in transmission can vary from gray blue to                                 
                 amber.  Claim 1, as presented in the Brief, appears below:                                              
                 1.   A coated article comprising:                                                                       
                        a.  a glass substrate; and                                                                       
                        b.  a copper oxide and manganese oxide coating over the substrate, the                           
                 coating having the molar ratio of copper to manganese in the range of about                             
                 0.8 to 1.2 and a blue color in transmission.                                                            
                      The Examiner relies upon the following reference:                                                  
                 Stephens 5,593,134 Dec. 2, 1997 (Dec. 29, 1994)                                                         
                      Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by                           
                 Stephens.                                                                                               
                      Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the                                   
                 Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make                                
                 reference to the Answer (mailed Apr. 5, 2006) for the Examiner's reasoning                              
                 in support of the rejection and to the Brief (filed Sep. 12, 2005) for                                  

                                                           2                                                             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007