Ex Parte Cremer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2016

13736275 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/736,275 01/08/2013
22928 7590 10/21/2016
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Melissa Danielle Cremer
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SP12-007 2568
EXAMINER
GUO, TONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1783
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/21/2016 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):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MELISSA DANIELLE CREMER, STEVEN BRUCE DA WES,
SHANDON DEE HART, and LISA ANN HOGUE 1
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-8 and 21-27.2 We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Coming
Incorporated. Appeal Brief filed September 23, 2014 ("App. Br."), 3.
2 Pending claims 9-20 stand withdrawn from consideration. Final Office
Action entered April 11, 2014 ("Final Act."), 1.
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention is generally directed to a coated article
comprising a glass or glass-ceramic substrate and a multilayer coating
disposed on at least a portion of a surface of the substrate. Spec. Abstract;
independent claims 1, 21. The multilayer coating comprises a layer of a
low-refractive-index material and a layer of a high-refractive-index material.
Id.
Claims 1 and 21 are illustrative:
1. A coated article, comprising:
a glass or glass-ceramic substrate; and
a multilayer coating having an average thickness of less
than or equal to about 500 nm disposed on at least a portion of a
surface of the glass or glass-ceramic substrate;
wherein the multilayer coating comprises a layer of a
low-refractive-index material, having an index of refraction as
measured at a wavelength of 589 nanometers of less than 1.6,
and a layer of a high-refractive-index material, having an index
of refraction as measured at a wavelength of 5 89 nanometers of
greater than or equal to 1.6;
wherein the layer of the low-refractive-index material is
farthest from the glass or glass-ceramic substrate;
wherein the coated article has a specular reflectance that
is less than or equal to about 85 percent of a specular
reflectance of the glass or glass-ceramic substrate alone when
measured at wavelengths of about 450 nanometers to about 7 50
nanometers; and
wherein the multilayer coating has a specular reflectance
of less than 5 percent across the spectrum comprising
wavelengths of about 450 nanometers to about 750 nanometers.
21. A coated article, comprising:
a glass or glass-ceramic substrate; and
a multilayer coating disposed on at least a portion of a
surface of the glass or glass-ceramic substrate;
2
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
wherein the multilayer coating comprises a layer of a
low-refractive-index material, having a thickness of less than or
equal to about 50 nm and an index of refraction as measured at
a wavelength of 589 nanometers of less than 1.6, and a layer of
a high-refractive-index material, having an index of refraction
as measured at a wavelength of 589 nanometers of greater than
or equal to 1. 6;
wherein the layer of the low-refractive-index material is
farthest from the glass or glass-ceramic substrate; and
wherein the coated article has a specular reflectance that
is less than or equal to about 7% when measured at wavelengths
of about 450 nanometers to about 850 nanometers.
App. Br. 29-30 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following final rejections3:
I. Claims 1 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, et al., Optical Properties of Titania/Silica Multilayer Filters
Prepared by Helicon Plasma Sputtering, 16 J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2926
(1998) ("Wang") and Wu et al. (US 2007/0103628 Al, published May 10,
2007) ("Wu").
II. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wang, Wu,
and Optical Materials, www.newport.com/Optical-Materials, accessed
September 4, 2013 ("Optical Materials").
3 Examiner's Answer entered December 18, 2014 ("Ans."). Certain
rejections are set forth separately despite being made over the same cited
references, i.e., Rejections I and VI over Wang and Wu and Rejections V
and VII over Wang, Wu, and Meredith.
3
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
III. Claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Wu, and Ishikawa et al. (US 6,611,090 Bl, issued August 26, 2003)
("Ishikawa").
IV. Claims 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Wu, and Hachitani et al. (US 2003/0039771 Al, published February
27, 2003) ("Hachitani").
V. Claims 7 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang, Wu, and Meredith et al. (US 2006/0286813 Al, published December
21, 2006) ("Meredith").
VI. Claims 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wang and Wu.
VII. Claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wang,
Wu, and Meredith.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of
arguments advanced by Appellants in their Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, 4
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred reversibly in concluding that
claims 1-8 and 21-27 are unpatentable for obviousness. We add the
following.
Rejections I and VI
Appellants provide arguments for the separate patentability of claims
1 and 26, but argue claims 21 and 25 together on the basis of claim 21. App.
Br. 7-10. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to claims 1, 21, and 26.
4 Reply Brief filed February 17, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
4
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
Claims 1 and 21
The Examiner relies on Wang for its disclosure of a coated article
comprising a glass substrate comprising a multilayer coating disposed on at
least a portion of the glass substrate. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds
that Wang discloses that the multilayer coating comprises a Si02 layer that
has a refractive index ranging from 1.57 to 1.44 at wavelengths of 200 to
2500 nm (corresponding to the low-refractive-index material recited in
claims 1 and 21 ), and a Ti02 layer that has a refractive index ranging from
2.82 to 2.26 at wavelengths of 200 to 2500 nm (corresponding to the high-
refractive-index material recited in claims 1 and 21 ). Final Act. 3. The
Examiner finds that Wang discloses that the first two layers of the multilayer
coating are arranged such that the low-refractive-index Si02 layer is farther
from the substrate than the high-refractive-index Ti02 layer. Final Act. 3--4.
With respect to the thickness of the multilayer coating recited in
claim 1, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses that the thickness of each
Ti02 layer can be 82 nm or 133.2 nm, the thickness of each Si02 layer can
be 135.1 nm or 221.1 nm, and the total thickness of the first Ti02 layer and
the first Si02 layer can thus be 217.1 nm or 354.3 nm, falling within the
range of less than or equal to about 500 nm recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner also finds that Wang discloses that the thickness of each layer
of the multilayer coating can be designed based on the desired optical
application of the film. Final Act. 3 (citing Wang 2929, Fig. 7). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the thickness of each layer depending on the desired
application, thus arriving at the thickness recited in claim 1. Id.
5
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
With respect to the thickness of the layer of low-refractive-index
material recited in claim 21, the Examiner acknowledges that the Si02 layer
disclosed in Wang is not expressly of a thickness of less than or equal to
about 50 nm, but finds, as discussed above, that Wang discloses that the
thickness of each layer of the multilayer coating can be designed based on
the desired optical application of the film. Final Act. 13.
The Examiner relies on Wu for its disclosure of an optical article
comprising alternating layers of Ti02 and Si02 on a glass substrate, and that
the thickness of the Si02 layers can range from values that encompass 50
nm, as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 13; Ans. 21. The Examiner finds that
Wu also discloses that the thickness of the individual layers of the optical
article can be adjusted to achieve the desired optical properties. Ans. 19.
We note that Wu teaches that "the transmittance of the dielectric transflector
can vary ... by simply adjusting the individual dielectric layer thickness and
the arrangement of layers." Wu Abstract.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the low-refractive-index
layer of Wang's multilayer coating as suggested by Wu to achieve a desired
optical quality, thus arriving at the thickness recited in claim 21. Final
Act. 14.
The Examiner acknowledges that Wang does not disclose that the
multilayer coating comprises only a single Si02 layer and a single Ti02
layer-necessary to achieve the total average thickness of the multilayer
coating recited in claim 1-and relies on Wu for suggesting this feature.
Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Wu discloses that the
number of alternating Ti02 and Si02 layers in an optical article can be
6
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
increased or decreased to optimize the thickness of the coating in order to
achieve desired levels of reflection and transmission. Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to reduce the number of layers in Wang's multilayer coating and optimize
the thickness of the coating, as suggested by Wu, to achieve desired
transmittance and reflectance, resulting in the structure and thickness recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 4-5.
With respect to the specular reflectance of the multilayer coating
recited in claim 1, and the specular reflectance of the coated article recited in
claims 1 and 21, the Examiner determines that specular reflectance is a
property of a multilayer coating for an optical article, and is dependent on
the structure and materials used for each layer of the coating. Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds that the structure and materials of the coated article of
Wang modified as suggested by Wu (discussed above) is the same as that of
the coated article recited in claims 1 and 21 because both have glass
substrates, both have Ti02 high refractive index layers, both have Si02 low
refractive index layers, and both have the high refractive index material
(Ti02) in contact with the substrate. Id. The Examiner determines that
because the structure and materials of the coated article of Wang modified as
suggested by Wu is the same as the structure and materials of the coated
articles recited in claims 1 and 21, the coated articles would have
substantially the same specular reflectance properties, such as those recited
in claims 1 and 21. Id.
Appellants argue that Wang and Wu fail to disclose a coated article
with a multilayer coating having a thickness of less than or equal to about
500 nm, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellants also argue that
7
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
although Table 2 of Wu discloses Si02 layers having various thicknesses, all
of the coatings have a reflectance of 30% or greater. App. Br. 22-23.
However, we agree with the Examiner that the combined disclosures
of Wang and Wu reasonably would have suggested a coated article
comprising a high-refractive-index Ti02 layer and a low-refractive-index
Si02 layer having an average thickness of less than or equal to about 500
nm, as recited in claim 1, in which the thickness of the Si02 layer is less than
or equal to about 50 nm, as recited in claim 21.
Wang discloses two coated articles in which a multilayer coating is
disposed on a glass substrate, and discloses that the multilayer coating of
each article comprises seven alternating Ti02 and Si02 layers. Wang 2926,
2929, Fig. 7. Wang discloses that each Ti02 layer of the first article has a
thickness of 82 nm, each Ti02 layer of the second article has a thickness of
133.2 nm, each Si02 layer of the first article has a thickness of 135.1 nm,
and each Si02 layer of the second article has a thickness of 221.1 nm. Wang
2929. The total thickness of the first Ti02 layer and the first Si02 layer of
the first article is thus 217 .1 nm, and the total thickness of the first Ti02
layer and the first Si02 layer of the second article is thus 354.3 nm.
Wu discloses a liquid crystal display (LCD) comprising a dielectric
film of alternating Ti02 and Si02 layers on a glass substrate. Wu ,-i,-i 7, 53;
Fig. 7a. Wu discloses that the number of alternating Ti02 and Si02 layers
can be increased or decreased to obtain the desired reflection and
transmission for the LCD. Wu ,-i 53. Wu further discloses that the thickness
of the dielectric film, including the thickness of individual layers in the film,
can also be optimized to achieve desired transmittance and reflectance. Wu
Abstract, ,-i 53.
8
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to achieve a
desired transmittance and reflectance for Wang's coated article reasonably
would have been led to vary the number of layers in, and thickness of,
Wang's multilayer coating, as suggested by Wu. In so doing, one of
ordinary skill in the art reasonably would have been led to a coated article
having an average thickness of less than or equal to about 500 nm, as recited
in claim 1, in which the thickness of the low-refractive-index Si02 layer is
less than or equal to about 50 nm, as recited in claim 21.
As to Appellants' argument, grounded on Table 2 of Wu and its
listing of the thickness of individual Si02 and Ti02 layers of three dielectric
films having reflectances of 30% or greater, i.e., 30%, 50%, or 70%, that
Wu's disclosed layers differs from that claimed (App. Br. 22-23; Wu
Table 2), we do not find it persuasive of reversible error because we find
nothing in Wu indicating that the reflectances listed in Table 2 are spectral
retlectances, nor do Appellants' arguments establish that the retlectances
listed in Wu's Table 2 correspond to spectral reflectance, as recited in claims
1 and 21 (App. Br. 9, 22-23). Further, Appellants' arguments fail to
demonstrate that varying the number of layers in, and thickness of, Wang's
multilayer coating to achieve a desired transmittance and reflectance, as
suggested by Wu, would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to a
multilayer coating having the thickness recited in claim 1, and having a low-
refractive-index Si02 with a thickness as recited in claim 21. Id.
Likewise, we find unpersuasive Appellants' further arguments that
Wang and Wu do not disclose the specular reflectance values recited in
claims 1 and 21 (App. Br. 9), that the Examiner improperly asserts that the
recited specular reflectance values are inherent to the coating of Wang as
9
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
modified by Wu (App. Br. 9-10), and that ifthe Si02 layer of Wang's
multilayer coating were modified to have a thickness of 50 nm or less, "there
is nothing indicating that the film would exhibit it the specular reflectance
values of claim 21 (or of claim 1 )" (App. Br. 23).
We note initially that the Examiner does not rely on any inherent
characteristic in determining that one of ordinary skill would arrive at the
claimed article, but rather, as discussed above, determines that specular
reflectance is a property of a multilayer coating and an optical article
comprising the coating, and that identical coatings will have the same
specular reflectance as this property is determined by the structure and
materials used for each layer of the coating. Final Act. 5.
As discussed above, Wu's broad disclosure that a desired reflectance
can be achieved by optimizing the number of layers in, and thickness of, a
film of alternating Ti02 and Si02 layers on a glass substrate for an LCD,
reasonably would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to modify Wang's multilayer coating of alternating Ti02 and Si02
layers on a glass substrate of an optical article to achieve a desired
reflectance. The spectral reflectance of Wang's coated article and of
Wang's multilayer coating modified as suggested by Wu would have flowed
naturally from following Wu's suggestion of increasing or decreasing the
number of layers in the coating, and optimizing the thickness of the coating.
Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (BPAI 1985) ("The fact that appellant
has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from
following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability
when the differences would otherwise be obvious."). In other words, Wu's
suggestion of modifying the number of layers in, and thickness of, Wang's
10
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
multilayer coating on a glass substrate constitutes an implicit suggestion of
any property associated with or intrinsic to such a suggested multilayer
coating and coated article, including the spectral reflectance, as recited in
claims 1and21. In re Kubin, 561F.3d1351, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("Even
if no prior art of record explicitly discusses the [limitation], [applicants']
application itself instructs that [the limitation] is not an additional
requirement imposed by the claims on the [claimed invention], but rather a
property necessarily present in [the claimed invention."); see also In re
Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391(CCPA1963) ("a compound and its properties
are inseparable").
Appellants' arguments do not establish the criticality of the particular
spectral reflectance values recited in claims 1 and 21. App. Br. 9-10, 23.
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(explaining that
Appellants can evince the criticality of a novel feature of the claimed
invention, "generally by showing that the claimed [novel feature] ...
achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art" feature.) Nor do
Appellants' argument establish that one of ordinary skill in the art following
the suggestions of Wu and Wang would not have arrived at a multilayer
coating and coated article having spectral reflectances as recited in claims 1
and 21. App. Br. 9-10, 23.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of reversible
error, and we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 21, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and recites that the coated article has
a haze of less than or equal to about 0.1 percent when measured in
11
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
accordance with ASTM procedure Dl003. The Examiner finds that
Appellants' Specification indicates that low haze can be achieved by
limiting the average thickness of the multilayer coating to less than or equal
to 500 nm, or limiting the thickness of each layer to less than or equal to
about 200 nm. Final Act. 5-6; Spec. ,-i,-i 54-55. The Examiner finds, as
discussed above, that Wang discloses that the thickness of each layer of the
multilayer coating can be designed based on the desired optical application
of the film. Final Act. 6. The Examiner further finds that Wu discloses that
the number of layers in the multilayer film can be increased or decreased,
and the thickness of the film can be optimized, to obtain the desired
reflection and transmission. Id. The Examiner concludes in essence that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
thickness of each layer of Wang's multilayer coating as suggested by Wu to
achieve desired optical properties, such as desired reflectance, transmittance,
and haze. Id.
Appellants argue that there is no disclosure in any of the cited
references of haze and how to achieve the haze limitations recited in
claim 26. App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend that Wu's teaching
regarding reflectance and transmittance does not equate to a teaching of
haze. Id.
However, as discussed above, Wu's suggestion of modifying the
number of layers in, and thickness of, Wang's multilayer coating on a glass
substrate constitutes an implicit suggestion of any properties associated with
or intrinsic to such a suggested multilayer coating and coated article,
including the haze, as recited in claim 26. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ
at 60; In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1357. Appellants' arguments do not establish
12
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
the criticality of the particular haze values recited in claim 26, nor do
Appellants' arguments establish that one of ordinary skill in the art
following the suggestions of Wu and Wang would not have arrived at a
coated article having a haze as recited in claim 26. App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error,
and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Rejection IV
Claim 5
The Examiner acknowledges that Wang and Wu do not disclose that
the glass substrate is a glass-ceramic comprising a glassy phase and a
ceramic phase, wherein the ceramic phase comprises B-spodumene,
B-quartz, nepheline, kalsilite, or camegieite, as recited in claim 5, and the
Examiner relies on Hachitani's disclosure of a glass-ceramic substrate on
which an anti-reflection film is formed that can be used as a dustproof
substrate for a liquid crystal device. Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner finds
that Hachitani discloses that the glass ceramic comprises a crystal phase
including B-quartz (corresponding to the recited ceramic phase) dispersed in
an amorphous phase (corresponding to the recited glassy phase). Final
Act. 9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to substitute the glass substrate of Wang modified as
suggested by Wu with the glass-ceramic substrate disclosed in Hachitani
because Hachitani teaches that the glass-ceramic substrate provides low
thermal expansion, high transmittance in the visible light region, and low
specific gravity. Id.
13
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
Appellants argue that Wang discloses a transmittance well
above 85%, while Hachitani discloses transmittances of 70%, 85%, and 90%
and above at 400-750 nm, and therefore there would not have been any
benefit to substituting Wang's glass substrate with Hachitani's glass-ceramic
substrate to improve transmittance as the Examiner proposes because the
transmittance of Wang's substrate is already comparable to that achieved by
Hachitani's glass-ceramic substrate. App. Br. 17-18.
However, assuming that the transmittances ofHachitani and Wang's
substrates are comparable as Appellants assert, we agree with the Examiner
that Hachitani's glass-ceramic substrate provides benefits other than high
transmittance in the visible light region, such as low thermal expansion and
low specific gravity. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably
would have been led to use Hachitani's glass-ceramic substrate in Wang's
coated article modified as suggested by Wu to achieve such additional
benefits. Therefore, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of reversible
error, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Claim 6
The Examiner acknowledges that Wang and Wu do not disclose that
the glass or glass-ceramic substrate has an average thickness of less than or
equal to about 2 millimeters as recited in claim 6, and the Examiner relies on
Hachitani's disclosure that the thickness of a glass-ceramic substrate affects
the substrate's transmittance. Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
thickness of the substrate of Wang's coated article modified as suggested by
14
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
Wu to allow sufficient light to be transmitted through the substrate
depending on a particular application. Final Act. 10.
Appellants argue that Hachitani does not disclose a coated article
exhibiting a spectral reflectance of less than or equal to about of 85% of the
glass or glass ceramic substrate alone, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 18.
However, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Wang and Wu, rather than Hachitani, for suggesting a coated
article having a spectral reflectance as recited in claim 1. Appellants'
arguments, thus, lack persuasive merit, and we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites that the coated article
comprises a portion of a touch-sensitive display screen or cover plate for an
electronic device, a non-touch-sensitive component of an electronic device, a
surface of a household appliance, or a surface of a vehicle component. The
Examiner finds that Wu's article having alternating Ti02 and Si02 layers is
used as part of a liquid crystal display (LCD), and Hachitani's glass-ceramic
substrate with an anti-reflection film formed thereon is used as a dustproof
substrate in a liquid crystal panel. Final Act. 10. The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the
optical article of Wang in the application of a liquid crystal display as taught
by Wu and Hachitani. Final Act. 11.
Appellants argue that Wu does not disclose a touch-sensitive display
screen, a surface of a household appliance, or a surface of a vehicle
component, as recited in claim 8. App. Br. 18-19. However, claim 8 recites
that the coated article can comprise a portion of a non-touch-sensitive
15
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
component of an electronic device. We agree with the Examiner that the
combined disclosures of Wang, Wu, and Hachitani reasonably would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical structure of Wang,
modified as suggested by Wu, in a liquid crystal display (LCD) as disclosed
by Wu and Hachitani,5 which is a non-touch-sensitive component of an
electronic device, as recited in claim 8. Appellants' arguments are therefore
unpersuasive of reversible error, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejections V and VII
Claim 7
The Examiner acknowledges that Wang and Wu do not disclose a
coated article as recited in claim 1 in which at least one layer of the
multilayer coating comprises nanoscale pores as recited in claim 7, and the
Examiner relies on Meredith for this feature. Final Act. 11. The Examiner
finds that Meredith discloses a silica film having a nanoporous structure
used as an antireflective coating, and the Examiner finds that Meredith
discloses that the nanoporous structure strengthens the silica film. Id. The
Examiner concludes in essence that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the silica layer (Si02) of Wang's
multilayer film, modified as suggested by Wu, to make it a nanoporous
structure as taught by Meredith in order to strengthen the film. Id.
Appellants argue that Meredith does not disclose a coated article
exhibiting a spectral reflectance of less than or equal to about of 85% of the
5 We further note that the liquid crystal displays disclosed in Wu are
inclusive of touch-sensitive display screens. Wu ,-i,-i 7-12, 48, 49.
16
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
glass or glass ceramic substrate alone, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 20.
However, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on the combined
disclosures of Wang and Wu, rather than Meredith, for suggesting a coated
article having a spectral reflectance as recited in claim 1. Appellants'
arguments thus lack persuasive merit, and we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 27
The Examiner acknowledges that Wang and Wu do not disclose a
coated article as recited in claim 1 that exhibits a scratch resistance of at
least 6H when measured in accordance with ASTM test procedure 03363-05,
as recited in claim 27, and the Examiner relies on Meredith's disclosure of a
nanoporous silica film having a scratch resistance of over 7H. Final Act. 12.
Appellants argue that because Meredith does not disclose the test
procedure that was used to determine the scratch resistance disclosed in the
reference, there is no way to determine whether Meredith's coating would
exhibit the recited scratch resistance if measured according to ASTM test
procedure 03363-05 as recited in claim 27. App. Br. 21. However, as
discussed above, Wu's suggestion of modifying the number of layers in, and
thickness of, Wang's multilayer coating on a glass substrate, and Meredith's
suggestion of making the Si02 layer nanoporous, constitutes an implicit
suggestion of any properties associated with or intrinsic to such a suggested
coated article, including the scratch resistance, as recited in claim 27.
Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ at 60; In re Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1357.
Appellants' arguments do not establish the criticality of the particular
scratch resistance values recited in claim 27, nor do Appellants' arguments
establish that one of ordinary skill in the art following the suggestions of
17
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
Wu, Wang, and Meredith would not have arrived at a coated article having a
scratch resistance as recited in claim 27. App. Br. 21. Accordingly,
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error, and we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 236
The Examiner acknowledges that Wang and Wu do not disclose a
coated article in which at least one layer of the multilayer coating comprises
nanoscale pores in which the average longest cross-sectional dimension of
the nanoscale pores is less than or equal to about 100 nm as recited in
claim 23. Final Act. 15. To address this feature, the Examiner relies on
Meredith's disclosure that the size of the pores in a nonoporous silica film
used as an antireflective coating is related to the size of the alcohol molecule
used to prepare the film. Id. The Examiner finds that Appellants'
Specification describes using methanol as a solvent to prepare an anti-
retlective coating having a nanoporous Si02 layer (Spec. Example 1 ), and
concludes that because Meredith also discloses using methanol as a solvent
to prepare a nonoporous silica film, the size of the pores in Meredith's silica
film would overlap the pore size range recited in claim 23. Id.
Appellants argue that that Meredith does not disclose or suggest that
pore size is a result-effective variable. App. Br. 26. However, Appellants
do not allege that one of ordinary skill in the art following the suggestions of
the combined disclosures of Wang, Wu, and Meredith, including using
methanol as a solvent to prepare a nanoporous Si02 layer for a multilayer,
6 Appellants do not provide arguments as to the separate patentability of
claim 22.
18
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
anti-reflective coating on a glass substrate, would not have produced a
coated article in which the size of the pores in the Si02 layer is encompassed
by, or overlaps with, the range recited in claim 23. Id. Appellants'
arguments do not question the Examiner's position that because Meredith
discloses that the size of the pores in a nonoporous silica film used as an
antireflective coating is related to the size of the alcohol molecule used to
prepare the film, Meredith's use of the same alcohol as disclosed in
Appellants' Specification would result in a film having the same size of
pores as recited in claim 23. Id. Therefore, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of reversible error, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 24
The Examiner determines that because the combined disclosures of
Wang, Wu, and Meredith suggest a coated article having the same multilayer
structure, made of the same materials for the high and low refractive index
layers, and having an overlapping thicknesses for the low-refractive-index
layer, as the coated article recited in claim 21, the coated article suggested
by the applied prior art would have the same specular reflectance properties
as the claimed article, including the properties recited in claim 24. Final
Act. 15-16.
Appellants argue that none of the cited references disclose a specular
reflectance variation of less than 5 percent or 10 percent after a specified
number of wipes using a Crockmeter as recited in claim 24, and the
Examiner improperly uses inherency to allege that such specular reflectance
variations are inherent to the coating of Wang as modified by Wu and
Meredith. App. Br. 26-27.
19
Appeal2015-004156
Application 13/736,275
However, as discussed above, Wu's suggestion of modifying the
number of layers in, and thickness of, Wang's multilayer coating on a glass
substrate, constitutes an implicit suggestion of any properties associated with
or intrinsic to such a suggested coated article, including a specular
reflectance variation after 100 or 5,000 wipes determined using a
Crockmeter, as recited in claim 24. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ at 60; In re
Kubin, 561 F.3d at 1357. Appellants' arguments are therefore unpersuasive
of reversible error, and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejections II and III
Appellants rely on their contentions that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the base claim, independent claim 1, from which claims 2--4
depend, and argue that that the additional references applied in the rejections
of claims 2--4 fail to remedy the deficiencies of Wang and Wu. App. Br.
13-15. Because we are unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, Appellants' position as to these grounds of rejection is
without merit. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 2-4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
In view of the foregoing, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 and
21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
20