Appeal No. 2006-0552 2
Application No. 10/167,160
b) a barrier layer deposited on said glass substrate:
c) a base coating of a substantially undoped metal oxide applied to said
barrier layer and having a thickness from 200 to 3,000 Å;
and
d) an electrically conductive coating of a doped metal oxide applied directly
to said substantially undoped metal oxide coating and having a thickness
of 300 to 2500 Å, wherein the source metal from which the oxides of the
substantially undoped and doped coatings are derived is the same;
said coated glass article being heat strengthened to have a surface
compressive stress greater than 3,500 pounds per square inch.
The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:
Fuchigami et al (Fuchigami) 4783211 Nov. 8, 1988
Proscia 5248545 Sep. 28, 1993
Krisko 6060178 May 9, 2000
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 13-23 stand rejected under 35 USC 103(a) for obviousness in view of
Proscia taken in combination with either Fuchigami or Krisko.
We have carefully considered the evidentiary record in light of the opposing
positions taken by the examiner and the appellants. Having done so, we find ourselves
in substantial agreement with the examiner’s position with respect to the rejections at
issue.
Accordingly, we adopt the examiner’s position as our own. Indeed, the
examiner’s answer includes an exceptionally thorough analysis and treatment of all the
issues on appeal. For that reason, we offer only a few additional comments for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007