Appeal 2007-1261
Application 10/196,523
emitting layer" (claim 1 (c)). According to Appellants, the prior art method
applies a dielectric layer 104 between light emitting layer 103 and electrode
layer 105 (Tanabe, Figure 7) such that it is impossible to apply the
conductive paste material of electrode layer 105 to light emitting layer 103.
(Brief 9-12; Reply Br. 4-6). Thus, it is the Appellants' essential position that
claim 1 requires applying a conductive paste material directly, rather the
indirectly, to the emitting layer.
This position is not well taken. In addition to teaching that conductive
paste material is applied to the emitting layer (Specification 6) as recited in
independent claim 1, the application disclosure also teaches that Appellants'
“layered composite may additionally comprise an appropriate buffer layer
between the emitting layer and the conductive paste material” (id. at
sentence bridging 6-7; see also Fig. 2 and original dependent claim 2/1).
Indeed, the Specification explicitly teaches that, “without a buffer layer such
as the SPAN layer, it would be difficult to fabricate any working devices
when the conducting paste is in direct contact with the emitting layer”
(Specification 11; emphasis added).
It is axiomatic that claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification and that claim language
should be read in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In light of the above
discussed disclosures, an artisan would understand that direct contact of
conductive paste material with the emitting layer (i.e., the claim
interpretation urged by Appellants) would be undesirable and that claim 1
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013