Appeal Number: 2005-2227 Page 6
Application Number: 09/845,356
Answer in the first paragraph of page 11 and the paragraph bridging pages 11 and 12. When
white light was desired, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected known light-emitting
materials and biasing voltage to obtain white light. That CBP is used as a host material is beside
the point in this context. Nor is the use of Ir(ppy)3 as a phosphorescent sensitizer as taught by
Forrest counter to the reasoning of the Examiner. As found by the Examiner, Ir(ppy)3 emits
green light in the device of Forrest (Fig. 3 peak in green light range of 500-570 nm). The use of
other known green and blue light-emitting materials in the device of Forrest would have been
obvious to obtain white light emission because it is known that red, green, and blue light will
combine to result in white light emission.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner’s “routine experimentation” analysis is flawed
because the modifications to Baldo and Forrest the Examiner proposes “would render the
disclosed inventions so modified unsatisfactory for their intended purpose.” (Brief, p. 16; see
also p. 24). But the intended purpose is to make a light-emitting device. It is not seen how
modifying the light-emitting devices of Baldo and Forrest to emit white light would made them
unsatisfactory as light-emitting devices. Appellant defines the intended purpose of Baldo as
limited to achieving efficient transfer by using CBP as a host for Ir(ppy)3 and the intended
purpose of Forrest as enhancing the emission efficiency of DCM2 (Reply Brief, p. 10), but this
focus is too narrow. The references must be considered as a whole for what they teach one of
ordinary skill in the art. The teachings as a whole support the position of the Examiner.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 25-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007