Appeal No. 1997-3302
Application No. 08/152,338
metal oxide films, such as indium oxide, are deposited.
However, as appellants point out in their brief at page 9,
there is no disclosure in Rukavina relating to the formation
of an electrochromic device. As appellants argue, Rukavina is
concerned with producing a resistor that generates heat when
an electric current is passed through the conductive metal
oxide. Thus, Rukavina does not refer to or contemplate the
use of electrochromic metal oxides in combination with the
electroconductive metal oxide film applied to the acrylic
substrate. Accordingly, even assuming for purposes of
argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to modify the Defendini process by replacing Defendini's
glass support sheets with plastic support sheets, we find that
there is no reasonable suggestion in the combined teachings of
the relied on references that would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to use a primer layer as claimed.
Finally, as applied, neither the Oshikawa nor Giglia
patents remedy the basic deficiencies in the examiner's stated
rejection. The mere fact that the prior art could be modified
as proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007