Appeal No. 2003-1951 Page 5
Application No. 09/930,258
Appellants also argue that there are both material and structural differences between an
unbaked oxide film as disclosed by Varaprasad and a baked film (Brief, p. 4). But Appellants
have not shown such a difference, in fact, exists. In this regard we note again that Varaprasad
mentions a number of methods for depositing the oxide film including vacuum deposition
techniques, thermal spraying, pyrolytic deposition, chemical vapor deposition, wet chemical
deposition, and thick film methods (col. 19, ll. 40-57). While Appellants rely upon Examples 1-
3 in Table 1 on page 12 of the specification as showing a difference in photocatalytic capability
between baked and unbaked films, none of those examples compare films made by baking a
precursor with films made by the other techniques mentioned in Varasparad. Moreover, as
acknowledged by Appellants in the Reply Brief (p. 1), all of the examples, including
Comparative Example 1, bake precursors to form oxide film. The examples Appellants rely
upon, thus, do not show a difference in photocatalytic capability between baked and unbaked
films as alleged. The comparative difference between the examples is the extent of the film to
the peripheral edges of the glass, not baking. Varaprasad, like Appellants’ Examples 1-3, does
not have oxide film on the periphery of the glass substrate. The “difference” illustrated in the
examples does not exist between Varasparad and the claimed glass plate. The evidence,
therefore, is not probative for the proposition that there is a patentable difference between the
glass plate of Varaprasad and the claimed glass plate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007