Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With the above precedents in mind, we turn to the examiner’s
Section 103 rejection. As is apparent from the Answer and the
amended Brief, there is no dispute that Kuhlman teaches a
“transparent touch panel membrane switch” corresponding to the
claimed touch screen, except for the claimed anti-reflective
coating layer. See also Kuhlman’s Figures 5 and 6 showing a
touch panel having a flexible film 11 having visual indicia, an
anti-reflective coating layer 20, spacers 14 and a base layer 12.
With respect to claim 10, the appellants only argue that Kuhlman
does not teach an anti-reflective coating having high, low and
high refractive index layers, with the high refractive index
third layer having a sheet resistance of at least about 200 ohms
per square. See the Brief, pages 3-7.
We are not persuaded by this argument. We initially note
that claim 10 does not require an anti-reflective coating to have
high, low and high refractive index layers as argued by the
appellants. In re Self, 671 F.2d, 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5
(CCPA 1982)(The appellants’ argument fail from the outset because
they are not based on limitations appearing in the claim). The
claimed anti-reflective coating has three layers, with the third
layer having a sheet resistance of “at least about 200 ohms per
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007