Appeal No. 2003-1951 Page 4
Application No. 09/930,258
The Examiner has established that Varaspasad describes a glass plate with an oxide film
on the central portion of a glass substrate. That is the same configuration as claimed. Moreover,
the indication in Varasparad that the oxide film can be deposited by a variety of film deposition
means including, but not limited to, such methods as vacuum deposition techniques, thermal
spraying, pyrolytic deposition, chemical vapor deposition, wet chemical deposition, and thick
film methods (col. 19, ll. 40-57) is evidence that the chemical structure and nature of the film is
the same notwithstanding the deposition technique used. The Examiner has met the initial
burden for establishing a prima facie case.
Appellants make several arguments with regard to structural differences. But we are not
persuaded that Appellants have met their burden in rebuttal.
Appellants first argue that “[t]he limitation ‘said peripheral portion being free from said
oxide film such that said peripheral portion is free from shrinkage force caused by said baking’
directly claims a structural difference in the final product.” (Brief, p. 4). The shrinkage force in
the peripheral portion claimed is discussed by Appellants as being due to shrinkage of the oxide
film in that location during baking (specification, p. 2, ll. 8-11) and, according to Appellants, it is
the absence of the oxide film in that location that solves the problem. But, just as in the claimed
product, oxide film is not present on the peripheral portion of the glass substrate (2) of
Varaprasad. It is, thus, reasonable to conclude that the peripheral portion of Varaprasad is free
of shrinkage force as claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007