Appeal 2006-2330
Application 10/364,089
Moreover, Appellants’ assertion that Depauw’s disclosure of substantially
equal thicknesses of each silver layer “does not teach the present invention as
claimed” is not persuasive since the Examiner relies on Okamura for a disclosure
that it is known in the art to make the second infrared film thicker than the third
infrared film, because the visible light reflectance is thereby reduced. Answer 4.
With regard to Okamura, Appellants further argue that Okamura specifically
states that the thickness of the metal film layers should desirably be not less than
4 nm (40 Å) and not greater than 30 nm (300 Å). In contrast, both the first and the
second infrared reflective metallic films in the present invention can be less than
40 Å. We also find this argument unpersuasive since, in general, a claimed range
of values which is either encompassed by or overlaps a range disclosed in a prior
art reference is considered prima facie obvious. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325,
1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1383 (Fed.Cir.2003).
The rejection of claims 2-17, 19-36, 39-40, 42, 44-50, 52, 54, and 55 is
affirmed.
Claims 41, 43, and 53
Claims 41, 43, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Depauw in view of Okamura and further in view of Lingle. The
Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Depauw and Okamura as discussed
above, noting that Depauw discloses that the coated glass article may be used as a
vehicle window. Answer 7. Lingle is cited for a disclosure of heat treating coated
glass articles that are used in vehicle windows. Id. According to the Examiner, it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007