Appeal 2007-3048
Application 10/355,018
the Examiner’s rejections based on the factual findings and conclusions set
forth in the Answer and below.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be
established absent some teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation in the
applied prior art references and/or knowledge generally available to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Pro-
Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573,
37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
The Examiner found (Answer 4) and the Appellants have not disputed
(Br. 4-7 and Reply Br. 2-5) that:
Boire discloses a low-emissivity coating on a substrate, the
coating comprising, in the following order outward from the
substrate, a barrier layer, a zinc oxide layer, a silver layer, a
sacrificial metal layer, a barrier layer, a zinc oxide layer, a
silver layer, a sacrificial metal layer, an absorbent layer, and a
final barrier layer (see entire document including Figure 1 and
column 9, line 36 through column 10, line 12).
According to the Examiner (Answer 4):
Boir discloses that one or more of the barrier layers may
comprise a layer of silicon nitride (column 5, lines 27-31) that
[may be] surmounted by a layer of titanium oxide (column 7,
lines 19-27). Boire discloses that the absorbent layer may
comprise titanium oxide (column 6, lines 17-22). Boire further
discloses that an absorbent layer may be placed under one or
more functional silver layers in addition to being placed over
one or more functional silver layers (column 4, lines 25-34). . . .
Boire discloses that the sacrificial metal layer may
comprise niobium (column 9, lines 63-65), but does not
specifically mention using a Ni-Cr alloy.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013