Appeal No. 93-2172
Application 07/363,758
layer and plate of glass and distinguishes the subject matter
defined by the claims from the sputter coated glass plates
described in King. In support of their argument, appellants rely
on a rule 132 declaration from co-inventor Sauvinet in which it
is stated that a pyrolyzed coating “is substantially more
strongly bonded to a substrate than a sputtered coating.” See
the declaration at paragraph 7. Sauvinet further states that the
greater strength of a pyrolyzed coating compared to a sputtered
coating has been confirmed by many tests in the field of
substrate coating. Sauvinet, however, fails to provide any
specific data regarding the alleged more strongly bonded
pyrolyzed coatings. Moreover, no bonding data is reported in the
Sauvinet declaration for an indium and tin oxide glass coated
substrate sputter coated under the controlled and relatively high
temperatures utilized by King. See King at column 3, lines 38-5
40 and column 5, lines 7-9. Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner that appellants have failed to provide objective factual
evidence that the product produced by King is structurally
different from the product claimed on appeal.
5Sauvinet opines that it is the “higher temperature of
pyrolysis as compared to sputtering” which produces the greater
bonding strength. See paragraph 7 of the declaration.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007