Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
asserts that the ZrO2 coating described at column 1, line 61 of
Sulcs Ais inherently a transparent coating@ which transmits the
visible portion of the spectrum while reflecting the infrared
portion back toward the filament [answer, page 3]. Appellants
argue that the white metal oxide described in Sulcs is an opaque
coating and, thus, is not transparent as claimed. The examiner
responds that ZrO2 is a transparent oxide as claimed [answer,
pages 7-8]. Finally, appellants maintain that the examiner has
no support for his position [reply brief, pages 2-3].
The question of whether the zirconium oxide of Sulcs is a
transparent coating is a question of fact which must be demon-
strated by the examiner. The examiner relies on inherency and a
reference to additional prior art which indicates that zirconium
oxide is transparent. Although we have no doubt that some forms
of zirconium oxide are transparent as asserted by the examiner,
the issue before us is whether the zirconium oxide of Sulcs is
transparent since it is the only reference cited in support of
anticipation.
The coating in Sulcs is for the purpose of providing a
heat shield which reduces heat loss near the end caps of the arc
tube. Thus, Sulcs is not interested in letting light out through
the coating, but instead, is interested in keeping heat in.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007