Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
substance, the amount light reflected by the
polyester or polycarbonate decreases
substantially. In this case the alternating
ITO/SiO stack acts as an “antireflective”x
coating.
Another reason for the versatility of
metal oxide coatings, particularly ITO, is
that they can be made electrically conductive
by doping with a conductive element, such as
tin, aluminum, barium, boron, or antimony.
When made conductive, the metal oxides also
help reduce static charge and electromagnetic
emissions.
Whether an optically functional coating is
“reflective” or “antireflective” depends on its
overall refractive index relative to the
refractive index of the underlying substrate.
There is no dispute that the alternating layers of ITO and SiO2
suggested by Olson produce high, low, and high refractive index
layers. See the amended Brief, page 6 and the specification,
page 7. Moreover, for the reasons indicated supra, we determine
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to dope
the high index oxide (dielectric) layers taught by Olson to have
the claimed sheet resistivity (desired conductivity) as suggested
by Kuhlman.
With respect to claim 44, the appellants only argue that the
applied prior art references would not have suggested the claimed
anti-reflective property, i.e., “a reflection of less than about
4 percent . . .” See, e.g., the amended Brief, page 8. We do
not agree.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007