Appeal No. 2006-0552 4
Application No. 10/167,160
corresponds to the claimed undoped base coating), a strong inference can be drawn
from other disclosed zone thickness ranges in Proscia that the second high refractive
index zone may have a thickness within the claimed range.
Appellant’s position is to the effect that in Proscia’s preferred embodiment the
low refractive index zone and the second high refractive index zone form a gradient
zone of two materials (silicon dioxide and tin oxide) where the relative proportions of the
two materials changes continuously with distance from the substrate. Thus, it is
appellants’ position that, with regard to this particular embodiment, the mixed material in
the gradient zone cannot be simply said to e an undoped metal oxide where the source
metal is the same as the source metal from which the doped metal oxide of the optically
functional layer 18 is derived.
We find appellants’ position unconvincing. First, we note that the second high
refractive index zone (corresponding to the claimed undoped base coating) is more
broadly disclosed by Proscia (column 4, line 47 - column 5, line 23) than may be
garnered from the preferred embodiment alone. Moreover, even with regard to the
preferred embodiment, the language of claim 13 does not appear to preclude a base
coating containing silicon dioxide in addition to an undoped metal oxide. In other words,
in our opinion, the claimed base coating at least reads on the tin oxide-rich portion of
the gradient zone in Proscia’s preferred embodiment. In this view, the source metal (fin)
from which the metal oxide of the undoped coating is derived is the same as the source
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007