Appeal 2006-2330
Application 10/364,089
in the appealed claims is “a coating (or a step comprising depositing the coating)
comprising a first infrared reflective metallic film having a thickness ranging from
25 Å to 300 Å; a second infrared reflective metallic film having a thickness
ranging from 25 Å to 150 Å; and a third infrared reflective metallic film
comprising silver having a thickness ranging from 50 Å to 100 Å wherein the
second infrared reflective film is thicker than the third infrared reflective film.”
Br. 5 (emphasis added). We find this argument unconvincing given the
Examiner’s finding that Appellants’ arguments are based on a misinterpretation of
Depauw as disclosing optical thicknesses for the various metal layers. Rather,
Depauw discloses that the metal layer thicknesses are expressed in geometrical
thicknesses while the non-absorbent layer thicknesses are expressed in optical
thicknesses. Answer 10-11. Appellants have not attempted to refute the
Examiner’s position that Depauw, when
correctly interpreted, discloses metal thicknesses within the currently claimed
ranges.
Appellants’ argument that Depauw fails to disclose or suggest a second
infrared reflective metallic film which is thicker than the third infrared reflective
metallic film second as recited in claims 26, 35, 36 and 39, and 40 is likewise
unconvincing because it is based on the same misinterpretation of Depauw. See
Answer 5 (finding that Depauw discloses that the top layer of an antireflective
combination layer, comprising three layers, may have a thickness in the range of
50 Å to 150Å, the middle layer may have a thickness in the range of 200 Å to
500 Å, and the bottom layer may have a thickness in the range of 50 Å to 150 Å).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007