Appeal No. 2004-1584
Application No. 09/067,746
Furthermore, for argument sake (because the instant claims
are process claims and not product claims), the examiner
provides no support regarding his conclusion that a sealing
membrane would be an ingredient that would be excluded because
it would, in fact, affect the basic and novel characteristics of
the product defined in the claim.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
The examiner’s position regarding this rejection is set
forth on pages 3-5 of the answer.
On page 6 of the brief, appellants argue that no single
reference teaches that it was known to maintain a vacuum from
the formation of the positive electrode through dry washing
(claim 36), to dry wash the positive electrode in a vacuum
(claims 36 and 48), or to maintain the vacuum continuously
through the entire process, without breaking the vacuum for
water washing (claim 48). We agree.
While the examiner states (answer, page 6) that
“Antoniadis’s teaching at col. 2, lines 56-61, fairly suggests
that all steps in the fabrication of the EL device should be
performed in vacuum for the purpose of achieving the superior
reliability and economics of scale”, we find that Antoniadis in
col. 2, states “[a] need also exists for a means of creating a
display which does not require interruption of a vacuum during
the fabrication process.” We find that the examiner’s
interpretation of this aspect of Antoniadis is broad-brushed as
Antoniadis simply states that a need exists for a means that
does not require interruption of a vacuum during the fabrication
process.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007