Appeal No. 2005-2709 Page 7
Application No. 10/113,648
We note that Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s statement, Answer
page 6, regarding the absence of a hole transport layer and an electron transport layer
in the description of the OLED embodiments appearing in paragraphs [0071]-[0073] of
Kido. Thus, we presume that Appellants are in agreement that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been in possession of an OLED described in the cited
paragraphs containing a hole transport layer and an electron transport layer.
§103(a) Rejections
Regarding the 35 USC § 103(a) rejections (d)-(j) Appellants state:
Claims 3-5, 8 and 13-25, stand finally rejected on 35 U.S.C. 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the EP reference [Kido] in view of one or more
of other references. For reasons noted above, it is believed that the EP
reference [Kido] does not disclose the essence of the invention claimed
herein and its combination with other references to remedy its
shortcomings would change the principal under which it was designed to
operate. As is well known in the art, the advantage in combining two
mechanisms of energy transfer and direct carrier recombination allows the
use of common host materials for different dopants and thus realize certain
advantages. The materials claimed herein can accomplish this but not the
prior art materials of the EP reference. (Brief, p. 7).
These argument are not persuasive. As stated above, Kido discloses an
OLED that emits red green and blue light and inherently has different peak
wavelengths. Thus, Kudo discloses and is therefore suggestive of what Appellants
consider the essence of the invention claimed. The Examiner has presented factual
determinations regarding the addition of the teachings of the additionally cited
references. These determinations are reasonable. Since Appellants have failed to
challenge the factual determinations, we presume that they are in agreement with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007