Appeal No. 2001-1092
Application No. 09/169,490
of a low resistance, metallic, reflective film on top thereof
(Brief, page 2). A copy of illustrative independent claim 42 is
attached as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence
of obviousness:
Finley 4,898,790 Feb. 06, 1990
Miyazaki et al. (Miyazaki ‘864) 5,413,864 May 09, 1995
Miyazaki et al. (Miyazaki ‘969) 5,419,969 May 30, 1995
Claims 42-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miyazaki ‘969 in view of Miyazaki ‘864 (Answer,
page 3). Claims 48-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miyazaki ‘969 in view of Miyazaki ‘864 further in
view of Finley (Answer, page 6). We reverse all of the examiner’s
rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Brief, the Reply Brief, and below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Miyazaki ‘969 discloses a low
emissivity film formed on a substrate which comprises a coating of
oxide films alternately formed with silver (Ag) films, with the
innermost layer being an oxide film and only the (111) diffraction
line of Ag observed (Answer, page 3). The examiner further finds
that Miyazaki ‘969 teaches an example where a ZnO film, a Ag film,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007