Appeal No. 2002-0429
Application No. 08/847,138
efficiency. (Id.) While this example does not teach the multiple
layers suggested earlier in the reference, it clearly exemplifies
a known layer of copper phthalocyanine, which is said in claim 33
to have the properties of claim 31.
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to use a multiple layer
hole transport layer, and the layer adjacent the anode to be
copper phthalocyanine (claim 32), which inherently has the claimed
properties of adhesion and energy band (claim 30). Further, the
examiner has found that the 4, 4’, 4”-tris[N-(3-methoxyphenyl-N-
phenylamino]triphenylamine is also known in the art as a hole
transport material (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 13-14). The
appellants have not challenged these findings of fact.
Consequently, the conclusion that it would have been obvious has
ample evidentiary support. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
Summary of Decision
The rejection of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Mori in view of Egusa, Ito, and Arai is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007