Appeal No. 2005-1161 Page 6
Application No. 09/793,406
glass substrate, rather, it is between the transparent dielectric layer of TiO2 and the Ni or Ni:Cr
layer. Replacing the Si3N4 layer with SiOxNy based on the fact that it will provide the desired
barrier properties as taught by Macquart would result in a layer sequence of glass
substrate/TiO2/SiOxNy/Ni or Ni:Cr as claimed. Because the SiOxNy layer would be between the
glass substrate and the silver layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that it would
perform its function of blocking the alkaline ions and oxygen from entering the silver layer as
desired just as the Si3N4 layer of Hartig ‘933 would block such contaminants.
Appellant also argues that there is a lack of suggestion or motivation for the replacement
of the Si3N4 layer of Hartig ‘933 with a SiOxNy layer. Appellant, however, provides no specific
arguments in support of this statement. We note that Macquart expressly provides a reason:
Because SiOxNy has the advantage of having a variable refractive index as a function of the
nitrogen level (MacQuart, col. 5, ll. 49-51). The expected benefit articulated in Macquart is
more than adequate motivation to make the replacement. See In re Skoll, 523 F.2d 1392, 1397,
187 USPQ 481, 484 (CCPA 1975).
Group B: Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, Appellant repeats the argument with regard to layer positioning
that we addressed above. As explained above, we do not find that argument persuasive.
Group C: Claims 4-10 and 19
Appellant focuses on claim 5 and presents one new argument. Specifically, Appellant
argues that the cited art fails to disclose or suggest what the specification explains: That the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007