Appeal No. 93-2172
Application 07/363,758
examiner has not been challenged by appellants. Thus, we also
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the coatings of King with
low emissivity. See the Answer at page 4. Also see footnote 4.
Appealed claims 37 and 51 stand on a different basis. These
claims define a plate of glass coated with an oxide layer having
zones of low emissivity and low resistivity and another zone
having a higher emissivity and resistivity. The examiner
contends that King discloses various zones within the coating
having different electrical properties and refers to the
reference generally at column 6. However, we find no specific
disclosure in this section of King which indicates that separate
zones should be formed wherein the emissivity and resistivity are
less than or equal to 0.15 and 3 x 10 ohm-cm in a first zone-4
and wherein the emissivity and resistivity are higher than 0.15
and 3 x 10 ohm-cm in a second zone as required by these claims.-4
Thus, we find that the disclosures of King alone are insufficient
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for the subject
matter defined by appealed claims 37 and 51.
In light of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of appealed claims 43-50 and 52-66. We reverse the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007