Appeal No. 2005-2004
Application 09/760,499
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
We first interpret the claims by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable
interpretation in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art in light of the written description in the specification, unless another meaning is intended by
appellants as established in the written description of the specification, and without reading into
the claims any limitation or particular embodiment disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., In re
Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The appealed independent
claims 1, 4, 26 and 36 specify a method of manufacturing “a display device” which term is
defined by appellants in the written description in the specification as “a generic term referring
to a light-emitting device and a liquid crystal display device” (page 1, ll. 11-13). Appealed
claims 1 and 4 further specify that the claimed method includes the step of “forming a light
emitting element.” In this respect, appellants describe a “luminous element[] that is comprised
of a luminous material sandwiched between electrodes . . . hereinafter . . . referred to as [sic]
light-emitting device,” and in characterizing the prior art, acknowledge that the term “a light-
emitting device” is “also called . . . a light-emitting diode or an EL[, that is, Electro
Luminescence,] display device” which “is composed of a structure that has an EL element
constructed of an anode, a cathode, and an EL material sandwiched therebetween” (id., page 1,
ll. 6-9 and 15-20). Thus, the step of form “a light emitting element” encompasses all of the steps
required to form all of the semiconductor and other components of such “element.” Appealed
claim 36 further specifies forming semiconductor structure, including “pixel electrodes,” in
several steps prior to “forming a light emitting layer and a cathode on at least one of the pixel
electrodes.” We determine that in context, the term “light emitting layer” corresponds to the
“luminous material” or “EL material” disclosed as “sandwiched between electrodes” which
9-10) because no content thereof has been identified as applicable prior art to the claimed
invention by either party, and even if there was, the examiner has not included this patent
document in the statement of the ground of rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n. 3,
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007