Appeal No. 95-2799
Application No. 07/799,806
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we will sustain the examiner's § 103
rejection of the appealed claims over the collective teachings
of JP '948 and GB '428. We will not, however, sustain the3
examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 under § 102 over Goodman.
We consider first the § 103 rejection of the appealed
claims over the combined teachings of JP '948 and GB '428.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual determination
that JP '948 discloses a metallic coated article comprising
the presently claimed transparent glass substrate, a
stabilizing layer selected from the group consisting of
silicon, titanium, zirconium, tantalum, chromium, niobium, and
silicon alloys, a metal compound film comprising metal
nitrides, and a protective layer for the metal compound film.
It is appellants' contention that JP '948 "does not teach the
nitride or oxynitride protective layer of the invention" (page
2 of principal brief). However, while JP '948 discloses
aluminum and silicon oxides as the protective layer, the
examiner correctly points out that GB '428 teaches the
3The examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 over the
combination of JP '948, GB '428 and Goodman subsumes the
rejection of claims 1-7 over JP '948 and GB '428.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007