Appeal No. 2006-3146
Application No. 10/020,986
conclusion that the combination does not disclose and fairly suggest the
claimed invention, and we find that Yang teaches and suggests that the heat-
dissipating layer should contact the substrate. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 19 and dependent claims 20, 21, and 25.
With respect to independent claim 26, Appellants argue that Shi does
not teach that both the inorganic layer 26 and the epoxy encapsulant 28 do
not adhere to the substrate 10 as required by the present claim language (Br.
11). Independent claim 26 recites that “a sealant for adhering the seal cover
plate and the metal thin film to the transparent substrate, said sealant having
a space for injecting an inactive gas, wherein an entire surface of the metal
thin film contacts the seal cover plate.” The Examiner relies upon the
teaching of Shi as to use a thin film under the seal with better encapsulation
and resistance to permeation (Answer, pp. 11 and 18). This teaching would
have been incorporated into the AAPA of Figure 1 under the seal cover plate
7. Therefore, both layers would have adhered to the substrate in
combination with the AAPA and the entire surface of the thin metal film
contacts the seal cover plate. Therefore, we find that the Examiner has set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention as recited in
independent claim 26. Appellants argue that the thin metal layer in Shi does
not adhere to the substrate (Reply Br. 4). While the layer does not adhere
directly to the substrate in Shi, we find that in combination with the AAPA,
the thin metal layer would be in contact with the seal cover plate and would
go to the substrate as with the seal and would be adhered directly or
indirectly to the substrate. Therefore, Appellants' argument is not
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007