Appeal No. 2005-0817
Application No. 10/167,683
However, appellants do not set forth separate arguments for
claims 2-9 and 13-14. Accordingly, claims 2-9 stand or fall
together with claim 1, while claims 13 and 14 stand or fall
together with claim 12.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute that Nakamura, like appellants,
discloses a process for forming a semiconductor layer by solution
coating a dispersion comprising a solvent and binder resin in a
continuous phase and an organic semiconductor material in a
disperse phase. It is appellants' principal contention that
Nakamura, being directed to the fabrication of photoconductors,
is non-analogous art with respect to appellants' fabrication of
micro- and nano-electronic devices. However, as explained by the
examiner, appellants' argument relates to only the first of a
two-pronged test for determining analogous art. In re Wood,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007