Appeal 2007-3048
Application 10/355,018
To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner relied on the disclosure of
Macquart (Answer 4). The Examiner found (id.) that “Macquart discloses
that it is known in the art to use either a niobium layer or a Ni-Cr alloy layer
for [sic, as] a sacrificial metal layer (column 6, lines 8-16).” Relying on this
teaching of Macquart, the Examiner concluded (Answer 4) that:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to make the sacrificial
metal layers of Boire from any suitable metal or alloy material,
such as a Ni-Cr alloy. . . .
The Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s determination
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ a Ni-Cr
alloy layer as the sacrificial layer of Boire to form Boire’s low emissivity
coating (Br. 4-7 and Reply Br. 1-5). Nor have the Appellants challenged the
Examiner’s determinations that Niwa, Wolfe, Hartig, Noethe, Baldwin and
Neumann teach or would have suggested the features recited in the other
claims on appeal (id). The Appellants’ only argument is that the prior art
references relied upon by the Examiner would not have suggested
employing a sublayer or a layer “including a fully oxidized Ni-Cr alloy layer
directly on a layer including Ag” as required by claims 1, 17 and 22 (Br. 4-7
and Reply Br. 1-5).
The dispositive question in this case is, therefore, whether the prior art
cited, namely Boire and Macquart, would have suggested employing a
sublayer or layer including “a fully oxidized Ni-Cr alloy directly on, and
outward from the substrate from, the sublayer including Ag” within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. On this record, we answer this question in the
affirmative.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013