Appeal 2007-3669
Application 10/831,671
a shadow mask for accepting the laser beam, the shadow mask
including:
a plurality of shadow mask sections, each shadow mask section
including at least one laser annealing aperture pattern for selectively
annealing underlying regions of a substrate; and,
at least one substrate alignment aperture.
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Liu US 5,147,826 Sep. 15, 1992
Takaoka US 6,680,460 B1 Jan. 20, 2004
Tanabe US 6,861,614 B1 Mar. 1, 2005
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 23-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Takaoka, Tanabe, and Liu. 1
Based on the contentions of the Examiner and the Appellants, the
issue before us is: Has the Examiner made accurate and sufficient factual
findings such that it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the
references in the manner claimed within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
We answer this question in the affirmative.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have
been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
1 Appellants have argued the patentability of the claimed invention together.
We will address the patentability of the appealed claims in the manner
presented by Appellants.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013