Appeal No. 2005-2666
Application No. 09/496,634
As found by the examiner (the Answer, page 9), the
appellants state at page 8 of the specification that:
Conventional touch screens 10 which do not include
coatings 62 and 64 generally reflect approximately 8%
of the light from each ITO to air interface. Although
conventional reflective coatings can reduce this
reflection to 4 to 6%, anti-reflective coatings 62 and
64 can further reduce this reflection to 1.5 to 2.5%.
While Olson does not specify the specific reflection percentage
recited in claim 44, it, like the appellants, teach that
alternating layers corresponding to 62 (ITO) and 64 (Silicon
oxide) layers can substantially improve the anti-reflective
property compared to the ITO layer alone. Compare Olson, columns
21 and 22 with the specification, page 8. Thus, it is reasonable
to infer from the teachings of Olson that the suggested
alternating layers would have provided a low reflection
percentage, including that claimed. At least, the claimed
reflection percentage (antireflective property) would have
naturally followed from the suggestion of the applied prior art
references. Compare also Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1985), aff’d. mem., 795 f.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir.
1986)(“The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage
which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the
prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007