Ex Parte Adachi et al - Page 2

               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