Appeal No. 2005-1161 Page 3
Application No. 09/793,406
2. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hartig ‘933 in view of Macquart and further in view of Hartig
‘321.
Appellant divides the claims into the following groups:
Group A: Claims 1-3, 17, and 20
Group B: Claim 18; and
Group C: Claims 4-10 and 19.
To the extent that these claim groups are argued separately in conformance with 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(8), the rule in force at the time the Brief was written, we consider them separately.1
We affirm substantially for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add the following
primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
Group A: Claims 1-3, 17, and 20
We select claim 1 to represent the issues on appeal with respect to Group A. Claim 1
requires a layer sequence of transparent dielectric layer/SiOxNy layer/Ni or Ni:Cr layer. Claim 1
stands rejected over Hartig ‘933 in view of Macquart and also over that combination further in
view of Hartig ‘321.
1Note that effective September 13, 2004, 37 CFR § 1.192 has been replaced by 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(69 Fed.
Reg. 49960 (Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sept. 7, 2004)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007