Appeal Number: 2005-2227 Page 3
Application Number: 09/845,356
that it was within the capabilities of those of ordinary skill in the OLED art to combine those
materials to obtain desirable hues of light including white (Answer, pp. 4-7). There is no dispute
that Ir(ppy)3 is an orthometallated complex within the meaning of claim 25.
Appellant advances two general arguments: (1) that there is no motivation to combine
Baldo or Forrest and Egusa; and (2) that the combinations would not result in the white light-
emitting device of the present invention (Brief, p. 13).
According to Appellant there is no motivation to combine because Egusa only discloses
that the light-emission intensities of red, green, and blue can be controlled, there is no express
disclosure of using red, green, and blue light-emitting materials in Egusa at column 26, lines 25-
28. Appellant acknowledges that column 20, lines 57-64 of Egusa1 discloses white light
emission from separate layers of blue emitting agent and yellow emitting agent, but Appellant
argues that this is not a disclosure of using red, green, and blue light-emitting materials.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it does not adequately take into account
the skill of the ordinary artisan nor does it adequately consider what the prior art as a whole
would have suggested to that ordinary artisan. See Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810
F.2d 1561, 1566-67, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1052
(1987)(To reach a proper conclusion under ' 103(a), the decisionmaker must step backward in
time and into the shoes worn by a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was
unknown and just before it was made.); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981)(AThe test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
1 Appellant cites column 27, lines 57-64, but it is column 20, lines 57-64 that contain the discussed subject matter.
Therefore, we assume Appellant meant to cite to column 20.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007