Appeal No. 93-2172
Application 07/363,758
When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably
appears to be either identical or only slightly different than a
product defined by a product-by-process claim, the burden is on
applicant to present objective evidence from which the examiner
may reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs
structurally from the prior art product. In this case,
appellants have failed to meet their evidentiary burden.
Certain appealed claims such as dependent claim 47 and
dependent claim 64 define the coated glass plate by reference to
electrical and optical properties. Specifically, the claimed
oxide coating is said to have a resistivity of 3 x 10 ohm-cm or-4
less in combination with an emissivity of less than or equal to
0.15. The King reference clearly describes the transparent
electrically conductive films formed by sputtering as having an
electrical resistivity of 3 x 10 ohm-cm or less. See Examples-4
2 and 4-6 and column 11, lines 18 and 19. Because the sputter
coated indium/tin oxide coating of King is produced by a method
similar to that utilized by appellants, utilizing a high
controlled temperature in an oxygen containing atmosphere to
produce a coating which is substantially colorless (column 11,
lines 19-21), there is a reasonable basis to presume that the
emissivity of King’s indium/tin oxide coating is identical to
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007