Appeal No. 95-2718
Application 07/914,852
oxide doped with tin (ITO) and doped tin oxide coatings, with
doped tin oxide being widely used in displays and as solar
coatings. Tin oxide coatings are also widely used in
electrochromic devices.” Moreover, we find that the claim
language “a conductive tin oxide film” encompasses a
conductive coating of indium tin oxide.
Appellants also maintain that Moser does not recognize
the problem of poor optical quality of tin oxide films, which
the claimed method addresses. However, it is well settled
that the prior art need not disclose the same purpose for a
claimed method in order to establish its obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d
1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 409
(1991). Since it is our view that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to select tin oxide as the
conductive surface coating in the Moser method, any haze
contained therein would have been necessarily reduced by the
metal oxide coating. In addition, we note that appellants
base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness.
Page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer indicates that appealed
claim 5 is free of the prior art. Indeed, we find no teaching
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007