Appeal No. 2005-2709 Page 6
Application No. 10/113,648
§102(b) Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9,11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as
anticipated by the Kido.1 We affirm.
Appellants argue that Kido does not discuss how the emission spectra of the
host and organic materials cannot overlap for the OLED to produce a full color RGB
display and does not disclose a host material that will work. Therefore, Kido does not
teach or suggest the claimed language of "wherein the peaks of the emission spectra
for the blue emitting host material, the red emitting material, and the green emitting
material do not overlap" as recited in claim 1. (Brief, pp. 6-7).
The subject matter of claim 1 is not limited to the scope of Appellants’
argument. Specifically, the language specifies peaks of the emission spectra do not
overlap. The claim language does not restrict the spectra from overlap. Kido
discloses that the organic element emits red green and blue light. The Examiner
asserts, Answer page 14, that Kido’s organic element that emits red green and blue
light inherently has different peak wavelengths. Appellants have not refuted the
Examiner’s position in responsive briefing. Furthermore, Appellants’ Figure 5, which is
indicated to be representative of the claimed invention, shows overlap of the emission
spectra.
1 Appellants have not argued the claims separately. Thus, we will limit our discussion to
claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007