Appeal No. 95-2799
Application No. 07/799,806
In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). In
the present case, we find that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to utilize the silicon nitride
protective layer of GB '428 as the protective coating in the
glass article of JP '948. Although appellants contend at page
4 of the principal brief that "there is no incentive in either
the Japanese or the British reference to replace the oxide top
layer of the Japanese metal/metal nitride coating with any
protective layer of the British patent," appellants do not
provide any factual basis for such a statement.
Appellants also maintain at page 4 of the principal brief
that "the overcoat of the British reference is an aluminum
alloy, not a silicon alloy." However, since the appealed
claims fail to define any specific amount of silicon in the
claimed silicon alloys, we do not perceive any meaningful
distinction between the claimed silicon alloys and the alloys
of GB '428 which contain silicon.
Regarding separately argued claims 8-10, which require an
additional layer between the metal compound layer and the
protective layer, appellants' counsel at oral hearing
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007