Appeal 2007-0162
Application 10/690,940
about 0.1 to about 10% by weight is preferable because the emission
efficiency at this concentration is high" (col. 16, ll. 39-41). On the other
hand, Appellants' Specification explains that the level of dibenzoperylene
concentration is selected so that it is a non-luminescent dopant, and that the
particular level at which the perylene is a non-luminescent dopant will vary
depending on the properties of the layer (see paragraph bridging pages 27
and 28 of the Specification.) Hence, although the Specification discloses a
dibenzo-perylene concentration of less than 5% for a particular layer, it can
not be concluded that Codama's disclosure of a range that encompasses a
concentration of 5% is a teaching of the claimed concentration of substituted
perylene that does not emit light. In essence, we find that Codama's
teaching of a concentration of substituted perylene that is sufficient to emit
light is not tantamount to a teaching or suggestion of utilizing concentrations
of the substituted perylene that do not emit light. Suffice it to say that
Appellants' inventive concentration of substituted perylene ends where
Codama's concentration begins.
The Examiner's additional citation of Toguchi for claims 2-4, 6-8, and
20 does not remedy the basic deficiency of Codama discussed above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner's § 112 rejection
of claims 1-4 is sustained, whereas the § 103 rejections of all of the appealed
claims are reversed. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-
part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013