Appeal No. 1997-2859
Application 08/340,676
as to claims 15 and 23 [brief, pages 9 to 10]. For the same
rationale as for claims 15 and 23 above, we sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 24.
Rejection of Claim 17
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hilton
and Kraatz. After noting the difference between claim 17 and
Hilton, the Examiner asserts [final rejection, pages 4 and 5]
that “[i]t would have been obvious ... to use an AR [i.e.,
anti-reflection] coating as taught by Kraatz et al. on the
window disclosed by Hilton, Sr. in order to increase
transmission through and decrease the reflected signal from
the window.” Additional to the arguments regarding claim 15
above, Appellants argue [brief, page 11] that “Kraatz does not
describe coating at least one of an outer surface of a
protective layer and an inner surface of a substrate of an
infrared window ...” We find that Kraatz does disclose
(column 2, lines 62 to 65) that “[a] series of ...
antireflection coatings is then deposited on the ... surfaces
of any of the substrates employed.” The purpose of such
coatings is to achieve high optical transmissivity [abstract]
and to obtain the capability of transmissivity over a greater
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007