Appeal No. 2003-1951 Page 2
Application No. 09/930,258
INTRODUCTION
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by U.S. Patent 5,724,187 issued to Varaprasad et al. on March 3, 1998 (Varaprasad).
Appellants indicate that the claims stand or fall together (Brief, p. 3). We select claim 1,
the only independent claim, to represent the issues on appeal. Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A glass plate comprising:
a glass substrate comprising a major surface divided into a central major portion and a
peripheral portion surrounding said central major portion; and
an oxide film formed on said central major portion by baking a precursory film, said
peripheral portion being free from said oxide film such that said peripheral portion is free from
shrinkage force caused by said baking.
We affirm substantially for the reasons advanced by the Examiner in the Answer (pp. 2-
5)
and add the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
The Examiner has established that Varaprasad describes a glass plate having all the
structural features required by claim 1, i.e, it has both a glass substrate (2) and an oxide film (7)
on the central major portion of the glass substrate (Answer, pp. 2-3; Varaprasad, col. 19, ll. 33-
35, Fig. 3B, and col. 29, l. 61 to col. 26). While the claim further specifies that the oxide film be
formed by baking a precursory film and that the peripheral portion be free from shrinkage caused
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007