Appeal 2007-0408
Application 10/150,014
f) another layer comprising a metal oxide (titanium oxide or
nickel oxide)
g) a second layer comprising Ag
h) a second layer comprising an oxide of NiCr
i) a layer comprising a metal oxide (tin oxide)
j) a third dielectric layer comprising silicon nitride.
The Examiner presents two rejections under the enablement
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1:
1. Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, 18-20, 22-25, 27, and 29-31 are rejected
because the Specification does not reasonably provide enablement for
a coated article comprising any conceivable dielectric layer or metal
oxide layer. Instead, the scope of enablement is limited to the use of
the specific compounds recited in the Specification for the layers.
2. Claims 18-20 are rejected because a specific sequence of ten layers or
twelve layers is critical or essential to the practice of the invention,
but certain layers (m) and (f) are missing from the claims.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Issues
The Examiner contends that layers (a) through (j) must be present in
all embodiments of the invention. These layers, according to the Examiner,
are critical or essential to the practice of the invention (Answer 5).
Appellant contends that the Examiner is attempting to limit the claims
to the best mode of the invention and that the Specification provides a clear
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013