Appeal No. 2005-0817
Application No. 10/167,683
Regarding separately argued claim 10, we also concur with
the examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to substitute the spin coating technique of
Chambers for the immersion (dip) coating and spray coating of
Nakamura. Appellants have presented no argument explaining why
the substitution of one conventional coating technique for
another would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Likewise, we agree with the examiner that Yang
evidences the obviousness of using inkjet printing for coating a
solution of an organic semiconductor, as recited in claim 11.
As for the separate rejection of claims 12-14 over
Dimitrakopoulos in view of Nakamura and Wolk, we subscribe to the
reasoning set forth by the examiner in the Answer.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007