Appeal No. 2004-1584
Application No. 09/067,746
Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by appellants on page
7 of the brief, and on page 4 of the reply brief, Antoniadis
teaches that “since the present invention does not require
electrode patterning, it provides for device manufacture that
(1) does not require vacuum interruption and a large number of
processing steps, and it hence is more easily and less
expensively preformed”. See col. 3, lines 12-16 of Antoniadis.
This teaching clearly indicates that electrode patterning steps
are not conducted. We therefore agree with appellants that the
combination of applied references does not suggest the invention
of claim 36 (as well as claim 48) because claim 36 (as well as
claim 48) requires an electrode patterning step. We refer to
the last paragraph of appellants’ position set forth on page 7
of the brief in this regard.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007