Appeal No. 2006-1002
Application No. 09/945,892
We consider first the examiner’s rejection of claim 29 over
Finley in view of Zagdoun and Baratuci. Appellants do not
dispute the examiner’s factual determination that Finley
discloses a solar control article that, like appellants’ coated
article, comprises a first antireflection layer of tin/zinc
oxide, a first buffer layer, an infrared-reflective layer of
silver metal, a second buffer layer, a second anti-reflective
layer, a third buffer layer and a second infrared reflective
layer.
The examiner recognizes that the layers of Finley do not
have thicknesses that fall within the claimed ranges. However,
as noted by the examiner, Finley expressly teaches that “[t]he
thicknesses of the various layers are limited primarily by the
desired optical properties such as transmittance” (column 7,
lines 39-41). Accordingly, we fully concur with the examiner
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to modify the thicknesses of Finley’s antireflective, infrared
reflective and primer layers such that they fall within the
claimed ranges in order to achieve a particular level of optical
properties, such as transmittance. It is well settled that where
patentability is predicated upon a change in a condition of a
prior art article or composition, such as a change in size or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007