Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i. The use of one silver-based functional metal layer along with specific characterised layers in Claim 1 to achieve a stack exhibiting neutral transmission colours.

ii. The attainment of a glossy silver appearance in external reflection without impairing the solar performance, and in particular without increasing the solar factor, while ensuring that the light reflection at the external side is higher than 30%. 7.4. For Step 4, 'Identification of what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim(s)', the Controller analysed the prior arts in the following manner:

ii. Document B -Document B discloses the same sequence of layers and overlapping thicknesses of the Nickel /Chromium layer and dielectric layer, aiming to improve the aesthetic appearance along with internal and external reflection. It teaches the same sequence as in the present invention, i.e., a silver layer sandwiched between the lower dielectric layer and the upper blocking layer, with multiples of the same stack. However, Document B differs from the invention claimed in the subject patent application as it shows a triple silver coating with all three silver functional layers being mandatory, and further discloses a maximum external light reflection value of only 23.7%, whereas the subject invention achieves a light reflection at the external side exceeding 30%. iii. Document D2: Document D2 discloses coated articles having a bronze glass appearance, with a light reflection on the external side of less than 28%, preferably between 22% and 26%. It also suggests that a combination of reflection greater than 20% and transmission greater than 35% may be achieved for monolithic windows and/or insulating glass ('IG') units. In D2, the coated article is designed such that the monolithic coated article or IG units exhibit blue transmissive colouration. In contrast, the invention in the subject patent application provides for a glossy silver appearance in external reflection, with the light reflection on the external side exceeding 30%.

iii. Even the expert affidavit filed by the appellant's expert lacked crucial data such as values for solar factor (g), energy transmission of incident solar radiation (ET%) and energy reflection of incident solar radiation measured on the external side (ERext), and failed to establish the claimed technical advancement over prior arts.

Based on the above findings, the key elements and sequences of layers in the claimed stack are already disclosed in prior art documents A, B, and D2. The documents 3417/Kolnp/2010 and 3022/Kolnp/2010 are also applicant's own patent applications which disclose the same concept of the present invention i.e. achievement of light transmission of below 60 %, light reflection of atleast 30% or 50% and use of mono silver layer however both of these applications have different characterizing features of stack. It is evident that the applicant was fully aware of the attributes of the stack in which the silver layer is directly sandwiched between the upper blocking layer and the lower dielectric layer without the presence of the lower blocking layer with a glossy silver appearance in external reflection without impairing the solar performance in particular without increasing the solar factor particularly a light reflection at the external side higher than 30% can be achieved by adjustment of thickness of layers within the stack without using inventive skill. Therefore, it is obvious to a person skill in the art to combine the teachings of cited prior arts as discussed above to achieve the stack having both neutral transmission colors and a glossy silver appearance in external reflection without impairing the solar performance in particular without increasing the solar factor particularly a light reflection at the external side higher than 30% without using inventive skill. Thus, claim 1 does not meet the requirements of sections 2(1)(ja). Dependent claims 2- 13 do not contain any features which, in combination with the features of any claim to which they refer, meet the requirements of inventive step. Thus, the present application does not meet the requirements of sections 2(1)(ja). "