Appeal 2007-1261 Application 10/196,523 includes the expressly disclosed embodiment wherein an intermediate layer is disposed between the conductive paste material and the emitting layer (i.e., the claim interpretation urged by the Examiner). Therefore, when properly interpreted, step (c) of claim 1 does not exclude the prior art method disclosed by Tanabe wherein an intermediate (i.e., dielectric) layer 104 is disposed between electrode layer (i.e., conductive paste material) 105 and emitting layer 103. Because the appealed claims do not distinguish over the prior art in the one and only manner urged by Appellants, we hereby sustain each of the § 103(a) rejections before us. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept. 13, 2004). AFFIRMED cam 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013