Appeal No. 2005-0912
Application No. 10/233,459
molecule with functional unit on the quantum dot surface which
causes excited state injection into the quantum dot” (appealed
claim 1). (Appeal brief at 3-4.) According to the appellants,
Mattoussi does not anticipate the invention recited in appealed
claim 1 because the reference does not teach an
electroluminescent device satisfying this claim limitation.
(Id.) We disagree.
As the examiner correctly points out (answer at 9-10), the
present specification enlightens one skilled in the relevant art
that “an excited state” may be a hole, an electron, or an
exciton. (Dependent claim 2; page 2, lines 20-22; page 4, lines
13-16.) In addition, substantial evidence supports the
examiner’s finding that Mattoussi describes quantum dots that
are either identical or substantially identical in terms of
composition and structure to those described in the present
specification (page 4, line 16 to page 5, line 34.) For
example, the examiner specifically refers to Mattoussi’s
experimental section at 4391, which describes trioctylphosphine
Group III-V semiconductor compounds such as GaAs, GaP, InN,
InAs, InP and InSb; and/or crystals of group IV
semiconductor compounds such as Si and Ge. In addition,
the semiconductor compounds may be doped with rare earth
metal cations or transition metal cations such as Eu3+, Tb3+,
Ag+ or Cu+.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007