Appeal 2006-2330
Application 10/364,089
Grounds of Rejection
1. Claims 2-17, 19-36, 39-40, 42, 44-50, 52, 54, and 55 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Depauw in view of Okamura.
2. Claims 41, 43, and 53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Depauw in view of Okamura and further in view of Lingle.
Background
Appellants state that there are no related appeals. However, the Examiner
has noted that similar arguments were presented in the following appeals (Answer
2):
Appeal No. 2006-1459 (Final Decision mailed May 31, 2006), Application
09/714,166 to Medwick et al.;
Appeal No. 2006-1002 (Final Decision mailed April 20, 2006), Application
09/945,892 to Medwick et al., a Continuation-In-Part of Application 09/714,166.
These applications have subsequently been abandoned.
Discussion
Claims 2-17, 19-36, 39-40, 42, 44-50, 52, 54, and 55 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Depauw in view of Okamura. The
Examiner found that:
Depauw discloses a coated article comprising a substrate, a first
anti-reflective layer, a first infrared reflective film deposited over the
first anti-reflective layer, a second anti-reflective layer deposited over
the first infrared reflective film, a second infrared reflective film
deposited over second anti-reflective layer, and a third anti-reflective
layer deposited over the second infrared reflective film. Answer 3.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007