Appeal 2006-2611
Application 10/356,118
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in
the Answer.
We consider first the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-4, and 37 over
Miyashita in view of Wolk. As explained by the Examiner, Miyashita, like
Appellants, discloses a method of forming an organic light-emitting device
having colored pixels that produce different colored light comprising
emissive layers, and organic layers in relationship to the emissive layers.
Although Mitashita expressly discloses that blue luminescent layer (108)
covers two or more different colored pixels (106, 107), a central argument of
Appellants is that "layer 108 in Mitashita emits light only over the blue
colored pixels" (page 10 of principal Brief, second paragraph). Appellants
explain that "[i]n the areas where red and green light are emitted, layer 108
does not emit light, but acts instead as an electron transport layer" (id.).
Therefore, Appellants conclude that blue luminescent layer 108 of Miyashita
does not qualify as the claimed "common emissive layer" over different
colored pixels.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. While Appellants
contend that it was known in the art that various parameters can be
controlled "so that a layer containing a luminescent material at its position
between an anode and cathode does not emit light when the anode and
cathode are activated" (page 2 of Reply Brief, second paragraph), Appellants
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007