Appeal No. 2007-0290
Application No. 09/778,464
2c) In the material titled “Coatings” which were appended to Mr.
Roisin’s declaration, it is stated that “[g]enerally speaking, antireflection
coatings available on the market can be classified into three categories.”
The standard efficiency is listed as “1.6 to 2.5%.” It is not clear how
evidence of commercial availability is supports the assertion that the skilled
worker would have construed “anti-reflective coating” to be limited to a
mean reflexion value of 2.5% or less.
3) In the Rosin declaration, it is stated that the “second fluorosilicone
film (antistatic coating) [of Taniguchi] cannot be considered an
antireflecting coating since” its mean reflexion value is higher than 2.5%.
Id. at 3. However, the Roisin declaration provides only one example of a
second film. Taniguchi’s disclosure is broader (e.g., at col. 8, ll. 21-43),
apparently including the same compounds which are used to prepare the
anti-reflective top coating. Thus, it is not clear that the showing in the
Roisin declaration is commensurate with the Taniguchi’s disclosure. In
particular, it is not evident that all Taniguchi’s second films would not
possess anti-reflective properties according to Appellants’ criteria.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013