Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
The electrode (13) is formed by a conventional
means such as sputtering[, disclosed as one of four
processes that can be used] (see col. 3, lines 11-13)
per instant claim 17. [Answer 4.]
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have selected the method of sputtering
for forming the cathode layer and have selected
cesium fluoride, rubidium fluoride, or potassium
fluoride as the non-conducting layer (per the buffer
layer), because Hung . . . discloses sputtering as a
suitable method and cesium fluoride, rubidium
fluoride or potassium fluoride as non-conducting
layer materials for an electroluminescent device.
[Id.]
Appellants’ arguments concerning Hung mirror the arguments raised
regarding the anticipatory rejection over Aziz with respect to the selection of
sputtering as the deposition method (Br. 5) and of depositing a heavy alkali
metal halide non-conductive buffer layer before sputter depositing the
cathode (id.). That is, Appellants are of the position that Hung would not
have suggested to a skilled artisan a process which forms a heavy alkali
metal halide, buffer layer and then deposits a cathode using sputtering as the
deposition method.
We note that, unlike a rejection under § 102 where a disclosure must
be sufficiently specific to direct one skilled in the art to the claimed
invention without any need for picking and choosing, such picking and
choosing is entirely proper in a § 103 rejection where an applicant is
afforded an opportunity to rebut with objective evidence any inference of
obviousness. Arkley, 455 F.2d at 589, 172 USPQ at 526.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013