Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
sputtering as the deposition method from three different deposition methods
(Br. 3). Moreover, to form an electron injection layer containing KCl
corresponding to the claimed buffer layer, KCl must be selected from the
large number of compounds listed in column 11, lines 52-60, of Aziz. Thus,
we concur with Appellants that Aziz does not teach “the use of sputtering as
the cathode deposition method with a step of forming a buffer layer of a
heavy alkaline [sic, alkali] metal [halide] layer before depositing the
cathode” with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation within the
meaning of § 102 (id.). Such picking and choosing may be entirely proper
in a § 103 rejection, but it has no place in a § 102 rejection. Arkley,
455 F.2d at 589, 172 USPQ at 526.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 17
or non-argued dependent claims 7, 8, 13, 15, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) over Aziz.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUNG
The Examiner rejected claim 17 and certain non-argued dependent
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hung.
According to the Examiner:
Hung . . . discloses making organic optoelectronic
devices comprising in order a glass substrate (21),
indium tin oxide anode (23), and an emissive layer
(25) comprised of Alq covered by a bi-layer
comprising a non-conductive layer (27a) which
may include potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride,
or cesium fluoride per the instant heavy alkaline
[sic, alkali3] metal [halide] buffer layer (see figure
2, col. 2, lines 49-57 and col. 3, lines 14-21). . . .
3 See footnote 1, supra.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013