Appeal No. 1998-0340
Application 08/449,682
claim 1 which is also representative of this grouping of the
claims. The crux of the issue is whether element 21 in
Inaba’s Fig. 3 can be considered a “sheet” as recited in claim
1. See answer, page 4, paragraphs 3 and 4, brief, page 4,
paragraph 2 and reply brief, page 1, last paragraph bridging
to page 2. The Examiner contends that element 21 of Inaba can
be considered a sheet on which is applied the conductive
coating 20 to serve as an antenna, whereas Appellant argues
that said element 21 is a film, not a sheet. To support his
position, Appellant argues [reply brief, pages 1 to 2] that
“[r]ather, it is crystal clear from the Inaba et al. patent
that it is the glass panes which support the polyester film 21
and conductive film 20 of Inaba et al. A glass sheet,
however, is not ‘flexible’ and that limitation is clearly and
definitely set forth in the appeal claims.”
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We find
no language in claim 1 which calls for the sheet as
“supporting the metal oxide film” as Appellant argues. Claim
1 calls for “a metal oxide coating on said sheet”. Inaba does
show that, see col. 4, lines 1 to 2. Furthermore, we do not
agree with Appellant’s argument regarding the distinction
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007