Appeal No. 2006-3146
Application No. 10/020,986
1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Mere denials and conclusory statements, however,
are not sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact.” Dembiczak,
175 F.3d at 999-1000, 50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas
Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In
re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir.
1998). Therefore, we look to the limitations as recited in independent claim
1. From our review of the Examiner’s rejection and the AAPA, we note that
the AAPA teaches the totality of the claimed invention without the use of the
heat dissipation layer and its placement in the AAPA electro-luminescent
display.
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner relies upon the
teachings of Yang and Gyotoku to suggest the use of a heat-dissipating layer
over the metal electrode and a multi-layer protective film. We find that the
combination of AAPA, Yang and Gyotoku teaches all of the elements of the
claimed invention. Appellants argue that the combination does not teach or
suggest a “protective film has a multi-layer structure of at least a moisture-
absorbing layer and a moisture-proof layer” (Br. 6). We disagree with
Appellants and find that the AAPA clearly teaches the two layer film and
Appellants’ specification states at page 4 that “seal cover plate 7 contains a
moisture-absorbing agent 8 and is attached with a supporting film 9 formed
from a semi-transmitting film.” Therefore, we find that the AAPA teaches
this claimed limitation. Additionally, we find no disclosure in Appellants’
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007