Appeal 2006-2330
Application 10/364,089
combination of properties from being realized.” Br. 6. Appellants argue that the
Examiner improperly interprets the language in Depauw as teaching that one or
more additional layers may be added to the coated substrate (e.g., a sacrificial
metal layer above each metal layer (col. 5, ll. 46-54), a protective layer to the
exposed portion of the coating (col. 6, ll. 15-24) and one or more layers to each
non-absorbent layer (col. 5, ll. 31-40)). According to Appellants “[a]ny thin
primer layer is not its own layer. It is part of a non-absorbent layer and thus part of
the five layer coating. . . . [T]he protective coating is not part of the five layer
coating . . . [but] is a separate layer which is used to protect the five layer coating.”
Br. 7.
Like the Examiner, we find these arguments unpersuasive. See Answer 8-9.
Regardless of the specific term used by Depauw, e.g., “subsidiary layer,” “sub-
layer,” etc., the claims read on the structure disclosed in Depauw. Moreover, like
the Examiner, we fail to see any merit in Appellants’ argument that the addition of
another layer would adversely effect the “specific combination of properties”
achieved by Depauw’s five-layer coating given Appellants’ admission that neither
the sacrificial layer nor the protective layer would modify the optical properties of
Depauw’s five-layer coating. See Answer 9.1
A second argument advanced by Appellants is that even if one of ordinary
skill in the art were to modify Depauw based on another reference, he would not
turn to Okamura because Okamura relates to a laminate for use as an optical filter
1 See also, Answer 10 (citing Noethe and Weber as evidence that additional layers
allow for higher optical transmission without modifying the remaining optical
properties).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007