Appeal No. 2005-1037
Application No. 09/904,269
flattens the sheet. The appellant has not shown that Baker’s invention does not actually
possess the characteristic of flattening the sheet.1
The second element of claim 1 recites, “processing said sheet.” The examiner
recognizes that Baker does not disclose processing said sheet. Examiner’s answer,
page 4. However, in the examiner’s view, Wu teaches processing the sheet.
Examiner’s answer, page 5. The examiner concludes that the combination of Baker
and Wu would have been obvious because it would result in minimizing warp and
disturbances in the layers of the display. Examiner’s answer, page 5.
The appellant argues that Baker does not teach processing a sheet in a flattened
configuration. Appeal brief, page 5. Appellant also argues that Baker teaches away
from processing the sheet in a flattened configuration. Appeal brief, page 5. Appellant
argues:
Baker simply skips the intermediate steps of processing the
sheet in a flattened configuration and immediately positions
the flattened sheet on the second sheet and secures them
together. Appeal brief, page 5.
In appellant’s specification, one embodiment of “processing said sheet” is
applying light emitting material, row, and column electrodes to the flattened sheet.
Specification, page 8. However, the specification asserts this is only one embodiment
and does not define the term “processing.”
1 Since the only alleged distinction between applicants' claims and reference is recited in functional
language, it is incumbent upon applicants, when challenged, to show that device disclosed by reference
does not actually possess such characteristics. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 U.S.P.Q. 563 (CCPA
1971).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007