Appeal No. 1998-1669
Application No. 08/508,563
the original oxygen partial pressure is restored. (Column 2,
lines 13-23.) Mueller further teaches that a sputtering
method may be used to make the ITO layers. (Column 3, lines
13-14; column 4, lines 1-2.)
The examiner states:
Appellant’s first step and second step are therefore
considered to be disclosed by the lowering of oxygen
and the restoring of the oxygen of Mueller since
“comprising” would open the claim to the inclusion
of the other step such as the first high pressure of
Mueller. [Examiner’s answer, page 5.]
The appellant, however, argues that Mueller does not
teach “interruption in the coating process.” (Appeal brief,
page 4.) Further, the appellant alleges that the present
invention is distinguished from Mueller in that coating is not
performed during the second step as recited in appealed claim
1. (Reply brief, page 5.)
In view of these opposing viewpoints, it is clear to us
that the examiner’s interpretation of appealed claim 1 is in
direct conflict with the appellant’s interpretation. It is
our judgment that one skilled in the art would not be able to
ascertain from the claim language and the specification as to
which interpretation should control. In particular, we are
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007