Appeal No. 2003-1940
Application No. 09/954,882
for combining the teachings of Matthies and Aoyama is absent.
This is so because whereas the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ
the three-layer insulation layer of Aoyama for the insulation
layer of Matthies, appellants correctly point out in the Reply
Brief that the third aluminum layer 8 of Aoyama would not satisfy
the requirement of Matthies for an insulating layer. As stated by
appellants, "[c]learly Aoyama's film, including a composite that
includes aluminum, cannot be an insulating film that would do
anything but short out Matthies" (page 2 of Reply Brief, fourth
paragraph). While it is true, as urged by the examiner, that the
appealed claims do not define the second inorganic layer as an
insulating layer, this is irrelevant to the examiner's motivation
for combining the teachings of Matthies and Aoyama. The claims on
appeal require a first inorganic layer, an organic layer and a
second inorganic layer over inorganic light emitting material, and
the examiner's rejection is based upon using the three-layer
structure of Aoyama as the insulating layer in Matthies. However,
the examiner has not explained how the aluminum layer 8 of Aoyama
would have served Matthies' need for an insulating layer over the
light emitting material. Although the examiner reasons that the
lack of disclosure in Matthies "does not preclude the possibility
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007