Appeal No. 2002-0429
Application No. 08/847,138
levels and the adhesion of the bottom hole transport layer, there
is no reasonable expectation based on the cited prior art that a
hole transport sub-layer can be found that has both an energy band
between that of the hole transport layer above it and the anode,
and also binds to the ITO layer below it better than the hole
transport layer above it in the stack would. At best, it is
urged, the references teach that both adhesion and progression of
energy levels from the anode toward the light-emitting layer are
important properties. (Appeal Brief, page 3, lines 16-22).
Initially, we note we disagree with the premise of this
argument. First, as discussed infra, Mori teaches multiple layer
transport layers and the use of copper phthalocyanine against an
ITO layer. The claimed improved adhesion and energy band features
are said by the appellants to be accomplished by copper
phthalocyanine (claim 33). As copper phthalocyanine is a known
hole transport layer1, we find that these claimed properties would
necessarily and inevitably flow from its use. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded by this argument.
The appellant also urge that there are over 1000 possible
candidates for each hole transport layer and second anode layer.
Exploring over 1,000,000 combinations for adhesion properties is
said to hardly be routine experimentation (Reply Brief, page 1,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007