Appeal No. 1997-1522
Application 08/296,779
After careful consideration of the rejections before us, the above cited prior art, the
arguments presented by appellants and the examiner, we reverse these rejections.
I.
The PTO has the burden, via the examiner, to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1584, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994);
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim 1 is directed to an article comprising a substantially transparent substrate of
the size and shape suitable for use as a gemstone or ornament and a multilayer thin film
interference coating over substantially the entire surface of the substrate. The coating
consists of alternating layers of substantially nonabsorbing materials with a relatively high
refractive index and a relatively low refractive index with respect to each other and of
thicknesses and identities chosen so that the entire coating will preferentially reflect at
least some of the incident light with wavelengths between 400 nanometers and 700
nanometers.
King is directed to a article, e.g., a window, eyeglasses, or costume jewelry,
comprising a transparent substrate and a semireflective metal layer coated over one side
of the substrate and a thin dielectric layer over the semireflective layer. King does not
teach the use of the claimed multilayer thin film interference coating nor the placement an
interference coating over the entire surface of the substrate.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007