Appeal 2007-0408
Application 10/150,014
(e) a third dielectric layer comprising tin oxide, wherein no
metallic layer or metallic layer portion is provided between the first layer
comprising the oxide of NiCr and the third dielectric layer comprising tin
oxide;
(f) a layer comprising a metal oxide;
(g) a second layer comprising Ag provided over and contacting the
layer comprising the metal oxide;
(h) a second layer comprising an oxide of NiCr provided over and
contacting the second layer comprising Ag;
(i) a fourth dielectric layer comprising tin oxide provided over and
contacting the second layer comprising an oxide of NiCr;
(j) a fifth dielectric layer comprising silicon nitride provided over
and contacting the fourth dielectric layer comprising tin oxide; and
wherein the coated article has a visible transmission of greater than
70%.
Therefore, the Examiner’s additional rejection of claims 18-20 for
lack of enablement is based on a faulty claim interpretation and cannot be
sustained for that reason.
E. Conclusion
We conclude that, on the present record, the Examiner has failed to
adequately support the case for lack of enablement under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
¶ 1. However, the facts support a finding of lack of written descriptive
support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 sufficient to support a rejection on that
basis. Therefore, we enter a new rejection under the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 pursuant to our authority under
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013