Appeal 2006-2330
Application 10/364,089
The Examiner concedes that Depauw does not specifically mention a third infrared
reflective film and a fourth antireflective layer, but notes that Depauw discloses
that the coated article desirably has a high luminous transmission and a low
luminous reflectance. Answer 4 (citing Depauw col. 2, ll. 39-42 and col. 4, ll. 48-
54). The Examiner relies on Okamura for a teaching that it is known in the art to
use three to six alternating infrared reflective/anti-reflective films in a layered stack
to achieve low visible light reflectance and high visible light transmittance.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to add at least one additional infrared
reflective/anti-reflective layer sequence to Depauw’s coating in light of Okamura’s
teaching that additional layers would enable the coated article to achieve low
visible light reflectance and high visible light transmittance. Answer 4.
Appellants advance several arguments in support of patentability of the
appealed claims over the applied prior art. We find these arguments unpersuasive
in overcoming the Examiner’s prima facie showing of obviousness for essentially
the reasons stated in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appellants first argue that Depauw’s invention is in the specific combination
of properties obtained by a five layer coated substrate. Br. 5 (citing Depauw, col.
3, ll. 18-25). Appellants maintain that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to modify Depauw by adding or subtracting one or more
coating layers because such modification “would effect the interaction among the
coating layers within the coating stack and prevent the desired, specific
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007