Appeal No. 2005-0912
Application No. 10/233,459
We affirm all four rejections.2 Because the examiner’s
analysis is free from reversible error and is, in fact, quite
convincing, we adopt the reasoning set forth in the answer as
our own and add the following comments for emphasis.
It is undisputed that Mattoussi describes an
electroluminescent device comprising a “hole processing means
capable of injecting and transporting holes,” “a light emitting
layer in contact with said hole processing means, comprising
quantum dots,” and an “electron processing means in contact with
said light emitting layer for injecting and transporting
electrons into said light emitting layer.” Rather, the
controversy in this appeal centers on the claim limitation “each
of said quantum dots[3] being provided with at least one capping
2 The appellants state that “[c]laims 1-10 stand or fall
together.” (Appeal brief at 2.) We understand this statement
to mean that, with respect to rejection I, claims 1-5, 7, and 10
stand or fall together and that, with respect to rejections II-
IV, the appellants rely on the same arguments made against
rejection I. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to claim 1.
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003) (effective Apr. 21, 1995).
3 The specification explains (page 3, line 31 to page 4,
line 3):
Quantum dots are semiconductor nanometer crystals and
may comprise Group II-VI semiconductor compounds such
as MgS, MgSe, MgTe, CaS, CaSe, CaTe, SrS, SrSe, SrTe,
BaS, BaSe, BaTe, ZnS, ZnSe, ZnTe, CdS, CdSe, CdTe,
HgS, HgSe and HgTe; and/or crystals of (cont.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007