Appeal 2007-0408
Application 10/150,014
note that the facts of this case differ from those of In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d
1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976), the case cited by the Examiner. In
Mayhew, the criticality of the cooling bath at the exit side of the bath was
evident from the nature of the process disclosed. Without the cooling zone
at the exit side, high temperatures in the bath would have caused alloying to
continue outside the bath resulting in an inferior alloy. The Examiner here
provides no convincing reasoning supporting a belief that the skilled artisan
could not obtain durable, heat treatable, low-E coated glass with dielectric
layers or metal oxide layers other than those identified in the Specification.
More evidence is required.
The Examiner rejected claims 18-20 for additional reasons.
According to the Examiner the coating of claim 18 is missing layers (m) and
(f). The Examiner has mistakenly compared claim 18 to the twelve layer
embodiment of Figure 1A. When the claim is read in light of the Summary
of the Invention layer system, it becomes clear that claim 18 is not missing
layer (f). Layer (m) is not included, but that layer is not required by the
broad layer system of the Summary of the Invention. We reproduce claim
18 below with the letter designations from the Summary of the Invention for
illustration.
18. A heat treated coated article including a coating supported by a
glass substrate, the coating comprising from the glass substrate outwardly:
(a), (b) a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, one of the
first and second dielectric layers comprising an oxide of titanium;
(c) a first layer comprising Ag;
(d) a first layer comprising an oxide of NiCr provided over and
contacting the layer comprising Ag;
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013