Appeal Number: 2005-2227 Page 2
Application Number: 09/845,356
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show unpatentability:
Egusa et al. (Egusa) 5,294,810 Mar. 15, 1994
Forrest et al. (Forrest) 6,310,360 Oct. 30, 2001
Baldo, M. A. et al., “Very high-efficiency green organic light-emitting devices based on
electrophosphorescence” Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 75, No. 1 (July 5, 1999), pp 4-6 (Baldo).
The Examiner rejects claims 25-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baldo
or Forrest either reference in view of Egusa.
We consider the issues as presented in the Answer, Brief and Reply Brief. Because the
claims are argued together, we select a single claim to represent the issues on appeal. We select
claim 25. Based on our review of the issues as they relate to claim 25, we affirm substantially
for the reasons advanced by the Examiner and add the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
Claim 25 is directed to a white light-emitting device. The device includes an anode, at
least one organic compound layer containing a light-emitting layer, and a cathode. The light-
emitting layer comprises red, green, and blue light-emitting materials within the same layer. At
least one of the light-emitting layers is an orthometallated complex. Tris(2-phenylpyridine)
iridium complex, a green light-emitting material, is identified as a useful orthometallated
complex (specification, p. 8, ll. 20-21 and the examples).
The Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claim 25 as the Examiner has established that the use of various red, green, and
blue light-emitting materials including tris(2-phenylpyridine) iridium complex (Ir(ppy)3), a green
light-emitting material, were known to be used in organic light-emitting devices (OLEDs) and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007