Ex Parte Remington

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 23, 2010

10814873 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL P. REMINGTON, JR.
____________

Appeal 2009-006753
Application 10/814,873
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 23, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2009-006753
Application 10/814,873

2

Appellant claims a process for depositing a silica coating upon a
heated glass substrate via a precursor mixture comprising a silane and a
phosphorous (V) compound (claim 1) such as triethylphosphate (claim 13).
Representative claims 1 and 13, which are the sole independent claims
on appeal, read as follows:
1. A process for depositing a silica coating upon a heated glass
substrate comprising:

a) providing a heated glass substrate having a surface upon which the
coating is to be deposited; and

b) directing a precursor mixture comprising a silane, an oxygen
source, a radical scavenger, a phosphorous (V) compound and an inert
carrier gas toward and along the surface to be coated, and reacting the
mixture at or near the surface to form a silica coating on the surface of the
glass substrate.

13. A process for depositing a silica coating upon a heated glass
substrate comprising:

a) providing a heated glass substrate having a surface upon which the
coating is to be deposited; and

b) premixing monosilane, oxygen, ethylene, triethylphosphate and an
inert carrier gas to form a precursor mixture, directing the precursor mixture
toward and along the surface to be coated, and reacting the mixture at or
near the surface to form a silica coating on the surface of the glass substrate.

The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner has
evidence of obviousness:
Neuman 5,599,387 Feb. 4, 1997
Soubeyrand 5,798,142 Aug. 25, 1998
Ye 6,106,892 Aug. 22, 2000
Appeal 2009-006753
Application 10/814,873

3

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects claims 1-6 over Ye in
view of Neuman and claims 7, 8, and 13 over Ye, Neuman, and Soubeyrand.
We will sustain these rejections based on the findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and rebuttals to argument well expressed by the
Examiner in the Answer. We add the following comments for emphasis.
As an initial matter, we clarify that Appellant's arguments are directed
to independent claims 1 and 13 only.
In rejecting these claims, the Examiner finds that Ye's process for
depositing a silica coating generally corresponds to Appellant's independent
claim process except that Ye uses a trivalent phosphorous compound (e.g.,
triethylphosphite) to accelerate silica deposition whereas the independent
claims use a pentavalent phosphorous (i.e., phosphorous (V)) compound
(Ans. 3-4). Concerning this deficiency, the Examiner finds that Neuman
discloses using various compounds including trivalent phosphorous
compounds and pentavalent phosphorous compounds for accelerating
deposition of silicon oxide (i.e., silica) alone or in combination with another
oxide such as tin oxide (id.). Based on these findings, the Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious for an artisan "to have modified
the process taught by Ye by using the phosphorous (V) compounds disclosed
in Neuman as the accelerant instead of triethylphosphite, as Neuman teaches
that all such accelerants are so capable" (id. at 4).
Appellant argues that Neuman's use of phosphorous compounds as
an accelerant "is shown only in conjunction of the deposition of silicon +
another metal, and not for the production of silica alone" (Br. 11). Appellant
acknowledges the Examiner's finding that Neuman teaches using accelerants
Appeal 2009-006753
Application 10/814,873

4
for silicon oxide alone or in conjunction with, for example, tin oxide (id. at ¶
bridging 11-12). Nevertheless, Appellant argues that "Neuman does not
actually teach the use of this accelerant with silicon oxide alone but is
instead consistent in showing layers of silicon oxide in conjunction with
another metal" (id.).
As correctly explained by the Examiner (Ans. ¶ bridging 7-8),
Neuman expressly and repeatedly teaches using accelerants (e.g., trivalent
phosphorous compounds and pentavalent phosphorous compounds) for
silicon oxide alone or in combination with another oxide such as tin oxide
(see Neuman Abstract, col. 13, ll. 15-65). Appellant has provided no factual
evidence or legal authority to support the proposition that an artisan would
have ignored these express teachings of Neuman and concomitantly the
suggestion derived from these teachings to use Neuman's pentavalent
phosphorous compounds as an accelerant for depositing the silica of Ye.
For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we sustain the
Examiner's § 103 rejections of claims 1-6 over Ye in view of Neuman and of
claims 7, 8, and 13 over Ye, Neuman, and Soubeyrand.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED

cam

Appeal 2009-006753
Application 10/814,873

5
MARSHALL & MELHORN, LLC
FOUR SEAGATE – EIGHTH FLOOR
TOLEDO, OH 43604