Appeal No. 2006-3146
Application No. 10/020,986
specification that indicates that this film is any different than shown in the
AAPA. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not persuasive. Appellants’
arguments in the Brief concerning independent claim 1 rely solely upon that
the Examiner does not rely upon AAPA and Yang for this element and
focuses solely on the teaching of Gyotoku (Br. 7). We opt to look at the
totality of the teachings and what would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art at the time of the invention in light of the totality. We find that the
claimed invention is taught and fairly suggested bye AAPA and Yang.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and its
dependent claims 4-6, 9 and 34.
With respect to independent claim 10, the Examiner relies upon the
teachings of AAPA and Yang (Figure 3D) to teach the claimed invention.
We agree with the Examiner and find that Yang would have suggested the
placement of the heat-exhausting layer to be formed on the seal cover of the
AAPA as one of the limited locations for it to perform the function of heat
dissipation. Appellants argue that the “AAPA and Yang, whether taken
separately or in combination, do not teach or suggest the claimed
combination including at least the feature of ‘an entire surface of the heat-
exhausting film contacts the seal cover plate,’ as recited by independent
claim 10” (Br. 9; emphasis omitted) since the anodes of the EL display are
not covered. We do not find this argument persuasive since the language of
independent claim 10 only requires that the heat-dissipating layer is on the
seal cover plate and the entire surface of the film contacts the seal cover
plate. Appellants argue that “in Yang, the protective layer 38 covering the
luminant layer 34 does not correspond to the claimed ‘seal cover plate for
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007