Ex Parte Halsey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

12200159 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/200,159 08/28/2008 Eugene Halsey IV OPT0001USI 7258
83121 7590 12/29/2016
Bayramoglu Law Offices LLC
2520 St. Rose Parkway
Suite 309
Henderson, NV 89074
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
in@bayramoglu-legal.com
Paul. Bendemire @ tpk. com
Lisa.SY.Lin@tpk.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EUGENE HALSEY IV and CATHERINE A. GETZ
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,1591
Technology Center 1700
Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 21-26, 30, 31, 34, and 38.
An oral hearing was held on December 2, 2016. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify TPK Touch Solutions Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
BACKGROUND2
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for forming an
interactive information device with a conductively coated panel having
reduced visible contrast between regions with and without a conductive
layer. Spec. Abstract. Coated panels formed according to Appellants’
method include a transparent layer of metal oxide overlying both the regions
with and without a conductive layer. Spec. 14. Each of the independent
claims recites “applying a transparent layer of metal oxide” and “selecting
said metal oxide layer to have a refractive index at the sodium D line of at
least 2.0 and less than 2.2.” Claims 1, 8, 13, 21, 30.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for making an interactive information device
comprising:
forming a reduced contrast, increased light transmitting,
conductively coated panel by applying a transparent conductive
layer on at least one surface of a first and a second surfaces of a
substrate in a pattern such that there is at least one area having a
conductive layer thereon and an adjacent second area without a
conductive layer on said one of said first and second surfaces of
said substrate, and
applying a transparent layer of metal oxide commonly
overlying both said one and said second areas of said one of
said first and second surface of said substrate including
selecting said metal oxide layer to have a refractive index at the
sodium D line of at least 2.0 and less than 2.2 and a thickness
that, in combination, reduce optical contrast between said one
area and said second area such that visible contrast between
said one area and said second area is reduced and light
transmission through said coated panel is increased by said
2 We refer to the Final Office Action mailed November 19, 2013, the Appeal
Brief filed September 18, 2014, the Examiner’s Answer mailed December
24, 2014, and the Reply Brief filed February 24, 2015.
2
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
layer of metal oxide that commonly overlies both said one and
said second areas;
applying a transparent, conductive layer on the other of
said first and second surfaces of said substrate in a pattern such
that there is at least one area having a conductive layer thereon
and a second area without a conductive layer on said other
substrate surface and applying a transparent layer of metal
oxide overlying said one and said second areas of said other
substrate surface;
applying each of said transparent layers of metal oxide by
a wet chemical deposition process; and attaching said
conductively coated panel to an electro-optic display for
displaying information when electricity is applied thereto.
Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix) 47-48.
Unlike independent claim 1, which requires applying a transparent
layer of metal oxide to both a first and second surface of the patterned
substrate, independent claims 8 and 13 only require applying a transparent
layer of metal oxide over one substrate surface.
Independent claims 21 and 30 require applying a transparent layer of
metal oxide over both substrate surfaces and that the transparent layer of
metal oxide on both substrates surfaces has a refractive index at the sodium
D line of at least 2.0 and less than 2.2.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1,2, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Applicants’ Disclosure (i.eAppellants’ admitted prior art, Spec. 12,
“BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” and Figure 1, labeled
“Prior Art”) (“AAPA”) in view of Olson3 and Hayashi4;
3 Olson et al., US 6,261,700 Bl, issued July 17, 2001.
4 Hayashi, US 6,522,468 B2, issued February 18, 2003.
3
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
II. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over AAPA in view of
Olson, Hayashi, and either Aroyan5 or Gottbreht6;
III. Claims 13, 21-26, 30, 31, 34, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over AAPA in view of Olson and either Aroyan or Gottbreht;
IV. Claims 1,2, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. over AAPA in
view of Machol7 and Hayashi;
V. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over AAPA in view of
Machol, Hayashi, and either Aroyan or Gottbreht; and
VI. Claims 13, 21-26, 30, 31, 34, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 over AAPA in view of Machol and either Aroyan or Gottbreht.
DISCUSSION
Appellants identify the instant application on appeal as “a division of
U.S. Patent Application No. 10/744,522” (Appeal Br. 3), which was the
subject of an earlier appeal to the Board (2011-001435), which was affirmed
by the Federal Circuit (order dated March 13, 2012). The Examiner
maintains that “[t]he current claims are substantially identical to the claims
of 10/744,522” (Ans. 18) being “drawn to the same method for making an
interactive information device with the exception that the metal oxide layers
now must have a refractive index of at least 2.0 and less than 2.2” (Ans. 19).
The Examiner further notes that some of the claims further differ in that the
recited transparent layers of metal oxide are applied by a wet chemical
deposition process. Ans. 19.
5 Aroyan et al., US 6,163,313, issued December 19, 2000.
6 Gottbreht et al., US 4,293,987, issued October 13, 1981.
7 Machol, US 5,719,705, issued February 17, 1998.
4
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
Appellants argue the claims subject to Rejection I—grounded on
AAPA, Olson, and Hayashi—and Rejection IV—grounded on AAPA,
Machol, and Hayashi— on the basis of claim 1. Appeal Br. 17-39, 41^12.
Appellants further rely on the argument as to Rejection I for Rejections II
and III and the argument as to as to Rejection IV for Rejections V and VI.
Appeal Br. 39^41, 43^45. Accordingly, we focus our discussion on the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 1.
To prevail in an appeal to this Board, Appellants must adequately
explain or identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365—66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to
make a prima facie case, it has long been the Board’s practice to require an
Appellant to identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection); In re
Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he burden of showing
that the error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s
determination.” (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009))).
On this record, for reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and the
Examiner’s Answer, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred reversibly in
determining that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention,
armed with knowledge of the cited prior art, would have found the claimed
subject obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. We add the
following.
Rejection I
The AAPA discloses that it was known in the art at the time of the
invention to use a conductively coated transparent substrate to form an
interactive touch information display panel. AAPA (Spec. 12). The AAPA
5
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
discloses that such conventional interactive touch information display panels
are formed by depositing transparent conductor in a pattern (“a coated
region”) such that regions with transparent conductor are adjacent to regions
uncoated with a transparent conductor (“an uncoated region”) and that “the
interactive device may be bonded to an electro-optical display, such as a
liquid crystal display, to form a configuration preferred for electrical and
optical performance by the consumer.” Ans. 2-3 (citing AAPA, Spec. 2,
13, Fig. 1). The AAPA further discloses that the patterned transparent
conductor can be formed on both sides of the same substrate. Ans. 5 (citing
AAPA, Spec. 12). The AAPA further discloses that optical inhomogeneity
as to the refractive index of transparent conductor coated regions and
uncoated regions resulted in a contrast between the coated and adjacent
uncoated regions that was plainly visible in reflected light and that this was a
source of consumer dissatisfaction. Ans. 3 (citing AAPA, Spec. 12).
Olson discloses that it was known in the art to provide antireflective
coatings on display devices to reduce reflected light improving the
performance by reducing glare. See, e.g., Olson col. 1,11. 50-55. The
Examiner relies on Olson for teaching the use of antireflective coatings,
particularly the use of a “multilayer coating including two or more layers
wherein high and low refractive index materials alternate” where the
disclosed high refractive index materials include “ITO, tantalum oxide,
zirconium oxide, and tungsten oxide.” Ans. 3 (citing Olson col. 1,1. 50-col.
2,1. 6; col. 21,1. 21-col. 22,1. 35). The Examiner has taken official notice,
and provided evidence, that the refractive indices of these high refractive
index materials are at least 2.0 and less than 2.2. Ans. 3; Final Act. 19. Si02
6
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
is an exemplary low refractive index material used in the multilayer
antireflective coatings. See, e.g., Olson col. 1,11. 58-59.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have provided a
multilayer antireflective coating over the conductive layer on both the first
and second surface, i.e., both sides, of the substrate because each of the
antireflective coatings would reduce the amount of reflected light and would
improve the performance by reducing the glare. Ans. 3,5. In reasoning that
the provided antireflective coatings reduce the amount of reflected light, the
Examiner further finds de facto that the antireflective coatings increase light
transmission through the coated panel within the meaning of the claims. In
re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In evaluating references, “it is
proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference
but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom.”).
The Examiner determines that the structure, materials, and method
taught by the applied prior art are substantially identical to that claimed and
that there is a reasonable basis for the claimed reduction in contrast and
increase in light transmission to be inherent. Ans. 4. In the Examiner’s
combination, the antireflective coating relied on as the basis for including
the high refractive index metal oxide layer adds a low refractive index layer
not recited in claim l.8 Ans. 22. The Examiner determines, nonetheless,
8 In the event of further prosecution, Appellants and the Examiner should
consider whether Olson’s disclosure that “[t]o reduce the amount of glare on
plastic or glass, the surface can include a layer of a metal oxide (such as
silicon dioxide or indium tin oxide (ITO), or suitably alternating layers of
metal oxides” constitutes a teaching that a layer of ITO alone is taught for
7
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
that there is a prima facie case of obviousness absent a showing that the
prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics
set forth in the claim. Ans. 4.
Appellants contend that the structure provided by the Examiner’s
combination “is not identical to the structure of claim 1 because the applied
prior art includes a low refractive index layer.” Appeal Br. 22. Appellants
further contend that the Examiner’s reliance on the substantial similarity
between the relied on combination and that claimed is untenable “because
two structures relied on by the Examiner that are ‘substantially identical’
may have dramatically different optical characteristics.” Appeal Br. 22-23.
In this argument, Appellants accurately identify that the structure formed of
a single layer of high refractive index material on substrate is reflective
while further addition of a layer of low refractive index material to the
underlying layer of high refractive index material is antireflective. Appeal
Br. 23-24 (citing Olson col. 22,11. 3-9, 21-29). This difference, however, is
not clearly determinative of error as, in essence, the issue is whether the
overlaying low refractive index material would reasonably have been
expected to alter the effect of the high refractive index material used to
overlay the transparent conductor pattern as to reducing optical contrast
between regions with and without conductor, and as to increasing light
transmission through the coated panel.
As to reduction in the optical contrast, Appellants direct us to no
evidence or persuasive argument to explain why a transparent layer of metal
the purpose of reducing glare such that it would have been obvious to
include said layer of ITO alone rather than the relied on multilayer
antireflective layer. Olson col. 1,11. 55-58.
8
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
oxide with a refractive index higher than that for both the regions with and
without conductor would not also reduce the optical contrast when further
overlaid with a low refractive index layer. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply
Br. Rather, to the extent Appellants proffer arguments relating to the
reduction of optical contrast, the arguments focus on the solution to the
problem not being recognized in the cited prior art, particularly as to use on
a patterned surface, such that the rejection is grounded on impermissible
hindsight or that there is no reasonable expectation of success. Appeal Br.
21-26, 28-37. In these arguments, Appellants rely on contentions we find
lack sufficient evidentiary support or to be inapposite as the relied on
structure effecting a reduction in optical contrast. For example, Appellants
contend that “[tjhere was no reasonable expectation of success . . . because
having a surface with two different materials with two different refractive
indices and covering this surface with another material with a given
refractive index may or may not reduce the contrast” (Appeal Br. 32-33),
that “Olson’s layer of metal oxide can reduce the reflected light of the
substrate (therefore the glare is reduced) and it cannot reduce the contrast,
and it will reduce the light transmission” (Appeal Br. 33), and that “silicon
dioxide cannot perform two functions of reducing glare and contrast at the
same time” (Appeal Br. 35). See In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315 (CCPA
1979) (“Arguments of counsel unsupported by competent factual evidence
of record are entitled to little weight.”); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument. . . cannot take the place of
evidence.”).
As to the increase in light transmission through the coated panel, we
discern no error in the Examiner’s determination that an antireflective
9
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
coating would reasonably be understood to increase light transmission as the
light otherwise reflected would instead enter the light-transmitting,
conductively coated panel. Nor do Appellants direct us to any persuasive
evidence or argument, on this record, that providing an antireflective coating
would not increase light transmission through the coated panel. See
generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br. Rather, Appellants again rely the same or
similar arguments as they did as to the reduction of optical contrast that, on
this record, lacks sufficient evidentiary support to rebut the Examiner’s
reasonable position that the relied-on antireflective coating would increase
light transmission.
For these reasons, it follows that we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred reversibly in determining that the relied on multilayer antireflective
coating having a layer of a high refractive index material with an overlying
layer of low refractive index material would have reasonably have been
expected to reduce the optical contrast between regions with and without
conductor and to increase light transmission through the coated panel and,
thus, establish a prima facie case of obviousness absent persuasive evidence
to the contrary. Cf. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255-56 (CCPA 1977)
(Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially
identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes,
the Office can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not
necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the claimed product.).
On this record, further, we are directed to no persuasive evidence or
argument that the Examiner’s relied on combination that includes a layer of
low refractive index material overlaying the high index refractive material
set forth in the claim would not have had the claimed properties as to
10
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
reducing the optical contrast and increasing the light transmission through
the coated panel. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br.
Appellants raise further arguments; however, these are unpersuasive
of reversible error because they fail to address the basis of the Examiner’s
rejection grounded on including the multilayer antireflective coating having
a high refractive index material—a metal oxide layer with the specified
refractive index—overlaid by a low refractive index material to provide the
benefit of reduced glare, resulting in a structure that meets the claim
limitations relating to reducing optical contrast and increasing light
transmission. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br.
Appellants further argue that one of skill in the art seeking to improve
performance would add the antireflection layer on or near the surface that
receives the external light “source because the glare [is] mainly raised from
the external light.” Appeal Br. 26-28 (citing Wang et al., US 7,633,583 B2);
see also Reply Br. 7-8 (citing Fuji et al., US 2001/0008433 Al).
As properly noted by the Examiner, Wang et al. is not properly of
record and its citation is untimely. Ans. 19. The citation to Fuji et al. is,
likewise, untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(1). Appellants’ argument in both
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have included an antireflective layer on the internal side of the touch
panel, accordingly, lacks sufficient evidentiary support. In re Pearson, 494
F.2d at 1405.
Appellants further argue that Olson teaches away. Appeal Br. 28-29.
The argument is grounded on the contention that a person of ordinary skill in
the art, having read Olson, would have understood that placing a coating
material over a patterned surface would reduce reflectivity in areas where
11
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
the refractive index of the coating material and underlying material are
similar or identical, but would not reduce the light reflection in areas where
the refractive indices are different. Appeal Br. 29. Appellants cite to a
portion of Olson, col. 1,1. 64-col. 2,1. 6 (Appeal Br. 15-16), but fail to
explain how this teaching would lead away from use of the antireflective
coating explicitly taught in Olson that is relied on by the Examiner (Appeal
Br. 28-29). We are, accordingly, not persuaded that Olson provides any
teaching away. See, e.g., DyStar Textilfarben Gmbh & Co. Deutschland KG
v. C.H. Patrick Col., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We will not
read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no such
language exists.”).
In particular, we discern no disparagement of the use of a multilayer
antireflective coating formed of a high refractive index material, e.g., ITO,
overlaid by a layer of low refractive index coating, e.g., Si02, where such is
reasonably taught for this purpose as applied to substrates with a lower
refractive index than for the high refractive index material {see, e.g., Olson
col. 22,11. 23-27) and Appellants direct us to no evidence or persuasive
argument contrary to such providing the antireflective effect to both the
transparent conductor coated and uncoated regions (Appeal Br. 28—29;
AAPA, Spec. 12). Fikewise, Appellants’ further argument that there is no
reasonable expectation of success for reducing reflection from a “surface
with two different materials with two different refractive indices” (Appeal
Br. 32-33) is unpersuasive where an antireflective coating overlaying each,
that functions as an antireflective coating over each region, is well within the
ambit of the person of ordinary skill armed with the cited prior art.
12
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
Appellants further argue that there are too many different
possibilities—there are many metal oxides and it is improper to rely on the
“obvious to try” rationale (Appeal Br. 29-31), but, in doing so, fail to
address the basis of the rejection as set forth by the Examiner, which relies
on the cited prior art for its teaching of particular, exemplary high refractive
index materials and low refractive index materials combined together to
provide an antireflective coating. Ans. 2-5. Appellants’ arguments are,
accordingly, unpersuasive of reversible error. Likewise, Appellants’
argument that the claimed method is nonobvious because the problem of
plainly visible contrast, in reflected light, between the coated and uncoated
regions was not recognized in the prior art (Appeal Br. 36-38), is without
persuasive merit because the motivation to modify the prior art need not be
the same as that motivating the inventor. See, e.g.,Alcon Research, LTD v.
Apotex Inc., 687 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he motivation to
modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be
the same motivation that the patentee had.”); see also KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990
(Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue that the multilayer
antireflective coating of Olson is an indivisible whole and that, so
considered, the high refractive layer by itself has no optical effect and that,
in order to be an antireflective coating, the effective refractive index of the
entire antireflective coating of Olson should be lower than the refractive
index of the underlying substrate. Reply Br. 4-5.
Appellants’ further argument is not persuasive of reversible error. As
explained above, and by the Examiner, the rejection is grounded on the
13
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
included high refractive index layer material that is part of a two layer
antireflective coating as reasonably taught by Olson. Ans. 22. The further
inclusion of a low refractive index material layer over the high refractive
index material is of no import as to meeting the limitations of claim 1
because, as the Examiner has explained, the claim is a “comprising” claim
that is open to the inclusion of the low refractive index material layer (Ans.
3, 22) and there is no persuasive evidence on this record that the Examiner’s
relied-on structure does not meet the functional limitations as to reducing
optical contrast between transparent conductor coated and uncoated regions
and increasing light transmission through the coated panel (see generally
Appeal Br.; Reply Br.). Cf. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d
1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]s applicants may amend their claims to
narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee.”).
As to Appellants’ further contentions relating to construction of the
claims (Reply Br. 6), we discern no cogent argument sufficient to address
the Examiner’s position, nor any basis for on this record for claim 1 to
exclude the presence of a silicon dioxide layer, i.e., a low refractive index
material layer. Cf. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art.”).
For the reasons above, Appellants have not shown reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of these claims over AAPA in view of Olson and Hayashi.
14
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
Rejections II & III
Appellants argue the patentability of claims subject to Rejection II—
claim 6—and Rejection III—claims 13, 21-26, 30, 31, 34, and 38—on the
basis of limitations common to independent claim 1 or from the dependency
from claims subject to Rejection I. Appeal Br. 39—41.
Being unpersuaded of reversible error as to Rejection I, we are
likewise unpersuaded of reversible error as to these claims and, accordingly,
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Rejection IV
The Examiner relies on the AAPA and Hayashi in the same manner as
for Rejection I, but relies on Machol in the stead of Olson. Compare Ans.
2-5 with 10-12.
Machol discloses that it is known in the art of conductively coated
glass to use an antireflective metal oxide coating on a substrate to reduce
reflected light. Ans. 10 (citing Machol col. 4,11. 47-65, col. 6,11. 14-29,
col. 7,1. 50-col. 8,1. 13). The Examiner relies on the teaching of multilayer
antireflective coating including two or more layers wherein high and low
refractive index materials alternate and for disclosure of high refractive
index materials such as ITO, tantalum oxide, and zirconium oxide. Ans. 10-
11 (citing Machol col. 3,11. 26^48, col. 4,11. 47-65, col. 7,11. 50-62). The
first layer formed on the substrate normally comprises a high refractive
index material and is followed by at least a second layer that comprises a
low refractive index material. Machol col. 7,11. 50-62.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed such a
antireflective coating over the conductive layer on both the first and second
15
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
surface, i.e., on both sides of the substrate, because each of the antireflective
coatings would reduce the amount of reflected light and improve the
performance of the performance by reducing the glare from the display set
forth in the AAPA. Ans. 10-12. As with Rejection I, the Examiner further
finds de facto that the antireflective coatings increase light transmission
through the coated panel within the meaning of the claims.9
Again, as with Rejection I, the Examiner determines that the structure,
materials, and method taught by the applied prior art are substantially
identical to that claimed and that there is a reasonable basis for the claimed
reduction in contrast and increase in light transmission to be inherent. Ans.
11. In the Examiner’s combination, the antireflective coating relied on as
the basis for including the high refractive index metal oxide layer adds a low
refractive index layer not recited in claim 1. Ans. 22-23. The Examiner
determines, nonetheless, that there is a prima facie case of obviousness
absent a showing that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently
possess the characteristics set forth in the claim. Ans. 11.
As to this ground of rejection, Appellants argue the claims on the
basis of claim 1 separately contending that Machol’s structure “is not exactly
identical with the claimed structure” because it requires “at least one more
low refractive index layer” and that Machol “is silent as to reducing] visible
contrast between two areas.” Appeal Br. 41^12.
As explained above in regard to Rejection I, however, the inclusion of
the low refractive index layer in the Examiner’s relied on combination and
the silence of the prior art as to reducing visible contrast do not evince any
9 Machol expressly teaches that antireflection coatings, in reducing
reflection, increase the transmission of light. Machol col. 3,11. 26-31.
16
Appeal 2015-004147
Application 12/200,159
reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the cited prior art
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed method within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants have not, again for reasons set forth in our discussion of
Rejection I, shown reversible error in Rejection IV. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 over AAPA in view of Machol and
Hayashi.
Rejections V & VI
Appellants argue the patentability of claims subject to Rejection V—
claim 6—and Rejection VI—claims 13, 21-26, 30, 31, 34, and 38—on the
basis of limitations common to independent claim 1 or from the dependency
from claims subject to Rejection I. Appeal Br. 43—45.
Being unpersuaded of reversible error as to Rejection IV, we are
likewise unpersuaded of reversible error as to these claims and, accordingly,
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13, 21-26, 30, 31, 34,
and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
17