Ex parte ROGERS - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1997-1522                                                                                           
              Application 08/296,779                                                                                         



              over substantially the entire surface of the substrate.  Claim 1 illustrative of the invention                 
              and reads as follows:                                                                                          
                      1.  An article of manufacture comprising a substantially transparent substrate of a                    
              size and shape suitable for use as a decorative object selected from the group consisting                      
              of gemstones and ornaments and a multilayer thin film interference coating over                                
              substantially the entire surface of said substrate, said coating consisting of alternating                     
              layers of substantially nonabsorbing materials with a relatively high refractive index and a                   
              relatively low refractive index with respect to each other, the thicknesses and identities of                  
              said layers being chosen so that the entire coating will preferentially reflect at least some of               
              the incident light with wavelengths between 400 nanometers and 700 nanometers                                  
              inclusive.                                                                                                     

                      The references relied upon by the examiner are:                                                        
              Mayer                         3,539,379                    Nov. 10, 1970                                       
              King                                 5,054,902                    Oct.    8, 1991                              
              Optics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc., copyright 1987, pp. 376-377.                                   
                      The rejections before us are:                                                                          
                      1.   Claims 1, 3-11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                     
                      unpatentable over King in view of Optics.                                                              
                      2.  Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over                                 
                      King in view of Optics as applied to claims 1, 3-11 and 13 above, and further                          
                      in view of Mayer.                                                                                      





                                                             2                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007