Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
We refer to the Brief and the Answer for a complete discussion of the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the Appellants and by the Examiner
concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 7, 8, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Aziz. For
the reasons set forth in the answer and below, we sustain the rejections of
claims 2, 7, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hung, of
claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hung and Nakaya, and of
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hung and Chen.
ANTICIPATORY REJECTION OVER AZIZ
The Examiner rejected claim 17 and certain non-argued dependent
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Aziz. According to
the Examiner:
Aziz et al. discloses forming organic light emitting
devices comprising in the following order: a
substrate, anode, hole transport region, mixed
organic region, electron transport region, electron
injection layer (27) and cathode (see Figure 2 and
col. 11, lines 39-59). The mixed organic region is
equivalent to applicant's [sic, applicants’] emissive
layer. The electron injection layer (27) reads upon
the instant buffer layer comprising a heavy
alkaline [sic, alkali2] metal halide as Aziz discloses
the electron injection layer comprises potassium
chloride (see col. 11, line 56). [One of three
disclosed] . . . preferred method[s] of forming the
2 See footnote 1, supra.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013