Appeal No. 2003-0090 Page 3
Application No. 09/006,379
OPINION
Claim 21 is directed to a free-standing film. The film includes a base and an anti-
reflective stack. The stack is optically coupled to the major surface of the base. The stack
reduces the reflectivity of the base at the major surface at a particular wavelength range. The
stack comprises alternating layers of high index and low index polymers. Claim 21 requires the
base to have a polymer layer. The specification indicates that the base may include a plurality of
alternating layers of different indices of refraction (specification at 4, ll. 6-9).
Schrenk describes an optical interference film made of multiple layers of polymers with
different indices of refraction. The film is substantially transparent to wavelengths of light in the
visible spectrum (Schrenk at col. 2, ll. 32-37). Schrenk also characterizes the film as suppressing
two or more successive higher order reflections in the visible range of the spectrum (Schrenk at
col. 3, ll. 44-49). In other words, the film is anti-reflective. The layers have differing refractive
indices in repeating units of ABCB, which, according to the Examiner (Answer at 5) and
undisputed by Appellants, meet the requirements of the alternating “high index” and “low index”
polymer layers. The Examiner finds that an outer layer of the Schrenk film is a base layer in
accordance with claim 21 (Answer at 3).
Appellants make two related arguments. First, they argue that Schrenk does not teach
“the base whose reflectivity is reduced by optical coupling of an anti-reflective stack to a major
surface of the base.” Second, they argue that Schrenk does not teach “an anti-reflective stack
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007