Appeal No. 2000-0747
Application No. 08/872,657
F.2d at1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. [T]he Board must not only assure that the requisite
findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the agency's conclusion." In re
Lee, Slip OP 00-1158, page 9. With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellant and Examiner.
On pages 8 through 11 of the brief, Appellant argue that the Examiner has provided
no basis for combining Staring with Utsugi. Appellant argues that Staring does not
suggest or teach an electron-injecting cathode layer having an ultra-thin layer of alkaline
earth metal as set forth in Appellant’s claims. Appellant further points out that Utsugi does
not teach or suggest an electron-injecting cathode layer employing an alkaline earth metal,
but instead teaches other materials.
On page 3 of the Examiner’s answer, the Examiner admits that Staring does not
show an electron-injecting cathode layer having a thickness of from 15 to 85 D. The
Examiner points out that Utsugi does teach an electron-injecting cathode layer of another
material having a thickness of 10 to 300 D. The Examiner does not provide any evidence
or factual finding as to reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the Staring
electron-injecting cathode layer by providing an ultra thin layer in the
range of thickness as claimed by the Appellant. The Examiner simply concludes that it
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007