Appeal No. 2000-0747
Application No. 08/872,657
in the art would look to this Utsugi teaching of a material having completely different
characteristics and simply be led to use an ultra-thin layer of alkaline-earth metal. We are
only left with the Examiner’s conclusion without a finding of fact on which to base that
conclusion.
The Examiner’s conclusion for reasons and suggestions of combinability are further
paled by the fact that Appellant’s disclosure shows that he has discovered unexpected
results not known in the prior art. In particular, we point to figures 2, 3 and 4 which are
graphs of luminance versus time for LED devices with different thicknesses of calcium
layers, barium layers and strontium layers respectively. On page 14 of the specification,
Appellant shows that by comparing the data in Figures 2, 3 and 4, it is evident that the
cathodes comprising an ultra-thin layer provide the best stress life compared to other
cathodes. Appellant argues in the reply brief that this showing of extended stress lifetime,
which is an unexpected result for the ultra-thin thickness of the cathode layer, has not been
properly evaluated by the Examiner. We agree.
We further note that the additional reference, Biebuyck does not provide any further
factual evidence to show reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would make
the proposed modification. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007