Appeal No. 2005-2181 Page 6
Application No. 10/044,268
The examiner argues that the motivation to combine the two references arises
from the Rancourt reference which teaches that indium-tin oxide is an available known
substitute for zirconium oxide.
We find that Rancourt describes an optical filter assembly to reduce glare and
increase image contrast for use with cathode ray tubes (col. 1, lines 61 to 64). The
optical filter assemble, in one example, comprises a two layer nonabsorbing optical
coating having a layer of achromatizing material M over an aluminum oxide film. The M
material may be cerium stannate, zirconium oxide or indium-tin oxide (col. 4, lines 16 to
22).
We will not sustain this rejection. In our view, there is no motivation or
suggestion to modify the zirconium oxide material in Pelekhaty used to form reflective
mirrors so as to reflect certain channel wavelengths with the indium tin oxide used as an
achromatizing material in the Rancourt device which is designed to reduce glare and
increase image contrast in a cathode ray tube. Even though Pelekhaty and Rancourt
both describe zirconium oxide, the zirconium oxide is not used for the same purpose or
in the same environment. As such, while Rancourt teaches that zirconium oxide and
indium-tin oxide are exchangeable, this teaching is limited to the use in cathode ray
tubes. In regard to the examiner’s reasoning that the motivation to modify the Pelekhaty
device such as to include indium-tin oxide instead of zirconium oxide is to improve the
transmission of light and increase scratch resistance, we note that Pelekhaty does not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007