Appeal No. 2005-2004
Application 09/760,499
remove substrate 101). [Brief, page 4, original emphasis deleted; see Yamazaki ‘138,
cols. 8-10 and FIGs. 2A through 4; see also reply brief, page 2.]
Appellants acknowledge that Yamazaki ‘138 states that the process thereof can be used
to prepare EL-type display units, but points out that the reference does not disclose that this can
be done and argues the examiner has not established why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated do so in a manner to arrive at the claimed invention (brief, pages 4-5).
Appellants argue that the “admitted prior art” does no more than disclose “a structure of an
example of an EL device” (id., page 7).
In response, the examiner again points to the method of forming a semiconductor element
and then removing the peeling layer before the rest of a liquid crystal display device is formed
according to Yamazaki ‘138 FIGs. 1 through 4, and contends that “the differences for forming
each [EL device and liquid crystal] device are extremely well known in the art” (answer, page 7).
Thus, the examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in this art would have been led to modify the
teachings of the reference to form the latter device by including “a light emitting element
coupled to the semiconductor element,” further pointing to a second “modification . . . not
required by claim 1,” wherein “liquid crystal elements []121, 122, 123, and 125 as shown in
Figure 4[] would obviously be omitted” because “[a]n EL display device . . . is self-emitting”
(id., pages 7-8). The examiner further contends that “[n]one of the claims require forming a
‘completed’ light emitting element prior to peeling,” and that Yamazaki ‘138 “suggests that any
layers that require forming at high temperature should occur prior to peeling” the peeling layer
and first substrate (id., pages 8-9).
Appellants reply that “the pending claims recite that a light-emitting element/layer or
display element is formed prior to removal of the recited peeling layer and first substrate,”
distinguishing Yamazaki ‘138 (reply brief, page 2).
We agree with appellants that the examiner has not established that one of ordinary skill
in this art would have modified the method of Yamazaki ‘138 by removing the peeling layer
and/or first substrate after the formation of “a light emitting element,” “a display element” or
structure constituting “a light emitting element” as specified by the steps of appealed claims 1, 4,
26 and 36 as we have interpreted these claims above. Even if the examiner established that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the method of the reference by either of the
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007