Appeal No. 95-2718 Application 07/914,852 We now turn to the § 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 21, 23-27, 29 and 30 over Moser. Like appellants, Moser discloses a method of forming a metal oxide film on the surface of a conductive tin oxide film by coating the tin oxide film with a solution comprising a metallic oxide precursor, removing the solvent, and converting the precursor to a metal oxide film. Appellants contend that “Moser et al. do not disclose or even suggest the use of tin oxide on glass” (page 4 of Reply Brief). However, this argument is not germane to the claimed subject matter inasmuch as claim 1 does not call for a tin oxide film on glass, but rather, on a substrate. Furthermore, at column 4, lines 1 et seq., Moser discloses that a substrate, such as glass, is rendered conductive by a surface coating by applying a conductive coating prior to the solution of metal oxide precursor. Although Moser teaches that indium tin oxide coatings are most preferred, we find that Moser would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that a conductive tin oxide film can also be used. We note that page 1 of appellants’ specification acknowledges that it was known in the art that “[t]he most widely used transparent conductors are indium -4-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007