Appeal No. 2007-0290
Application No. 09/778,464
14. They conclude that Taniguchi’s lens does not have the four elements
required by claim 1.2 Id.
We do not find the declaration persuasive. Mr. Roisin’s conclusion is
based on computer modeling (Roisin Declaration at 2) which is asserted to
show that lens Stacking 4, which contains a 1) substrate; 2) hard coat; and 3)
second fluorine containing organopolysiloxane-based film, has a mean
reflexion value which is greater than 4%. Roisin declaration at 3 (Stacking 4
has values of 5.06, 4.85, and 4.24). Roisin asserts that
[f]or the skilled person, a coating which does not lower the reflection
value (per face) to at least 2.5% is not considered as an antireflective
coating. This 2.5% value is the limit typically considered by the
skilled persons as characterizing an anti-reflective coating.
Id. at 3. In comparison, Stackings 2 and 3, which contain a coating
described by Taniguchi as having anti-reflective properties, have values less
than 2.5%. Id.
The problem with this evidence, as pointed out by the Examiner
(Answer 5), is that while Stacking 4 is described to have a hard coat on
pages 2 and 3 of the Roisin declaration, Annex 1 of the Roisin declaration
shows that the Stacking 4 hard coat has the same properties (n=1.39;
e=100 nm) as the “antireflective coating” in Stackings 2 and 3 (n=1.39;
e=100 nm). In other words, Stacking 4 does not lack an antireflective
coating as asserted by Mr. Roisin, undermining the logic which led to his
conclusion (at 4) that Taniguchi’s second film layer “is not an antireflective
2 Appellants also state that Taniguchi does not provide “any motivation for
introducing an intermediate impact-resistant primer layer between a hard
coat and an antireflective coating.” Br. 14. However, the claims are not
limited to this arrangement. Consequently, this argument has no merit.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013