Appeal No. 1999-0541
Application No. 08/599,436
recesses in order to effectively function as intended by the
reference.
Based on our findings above, we agree with Appellants that
the contrasting border layer of Kobale cannot simply be formed
over the conductive layer if it is still to function as an
etching mask during the formation of the recesses. We remain
unpersuaded by the Examiner’s arguments that changing the order
of the layers would not modify the operation of the device since
Kobale requires formation of the contrasting border layer over
the substrate, not over the conductive layer. This arrangement
is necessary so that the contrasting border layer can fulfill its
intended functions such as masking the substrate and conducting
potential carrier absent a separate anode layer.
We also disagree with the Examiner that certain aspects of
the display panel of Kobale can be combined with Brodie.
As the Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007