Appeal No. 2004-1962
Application No. 09/996,415
of claim 1. Accordingly, we need only address these references.
Also, because appellants present these arguments as being
applicable to all of the rejections, our determinations made
with regard to the patentability of claim 1 with regard to the
combination of Spahn in view of Soden are applicable to all of
the rejections.
We refer to pages 3-5 of the answer and pages 6-11 of the
answer with regard to the examiner’s position on this issue. We
incorporate the examiner’s position as our own and add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellants argue that claim 1 and claim 2 each require a
bias heater power supply and a vaporization heater power supply
that is separate from the bias heater power supply. Appellants
argue that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated
to modify Spahn’s arrangement to include a vaporization heater
power supply that is separate from the bias heater power supply.
We disagree for the following reasons.
Figure 6 of Spahn depicts the thermal physical deposition
source utilized in Spahn. As pointed out by the examiner, Spahn
at col. 7, beginning at line 65 through col. 8, line 14, teaches
how the top plate 20 provides for heating of the solid organic
electroluminescent material to control its vaporization, and how
a reduced degree of heating of the housing 10 provides for a
bias-level heating to enhance slow outgassing of gases entrapped
in the solid organic electroluminescent material.
Appellants argue that Spahn’s vaporization/bias heating
arrangement is specifically adapted to function with a single
power source with a fixed relative heat setting. Brief, page 6.
Appellants argue that Spahn has no need for independently
controlling the vaporization heating arrangement since the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007