Appeal No. 1997-1522
Application 08/296,779
Optics discloses a multilayer interference coating having high and low refractive
indexes on a glass substrate useful as antireflection coatings on optical instruments.
It is the examiner’s position that the teachings of King and Optics would have
rendered the claimed invention prima facie obvious. the examiner states:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which this
invention pertains to substitute the interference coating taught by Optics for
the interference coating of King, because they represent art-recognized
equivalents as they are both means of utilizing interference effects to modify
the color of reflected light from clear substrates. (Answer, page 3)
The examiner has also taken the position that coating a portion of or the entire substrate is
a matter of design choice. (Answer, page 6).
We reverse this rejection.
In order to properly combine references A and B to reach the conclusion that the
subject matter of a patent [application] would have been obvious, case law requires that
there must have been some teaching, suggestion or inference in either reference A or B,
or both, or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art, which
would have led one skilled in the art to combine the relevant teachings of A and B.
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 297 n.24, 227 USPQ
657, 667, n.24 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital
Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007