Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Hung would not
have led a person with ordinary skill in the art to select a heavy alkali metal
halide compound to form the buffer layer and to use sputtering to form the
cathode. First, Hung teaches the advantages of using alkali metal fluorides
(i.e., halides) for the non-conductive (buffer) layer in column 2, lines 11-14.
While expressing a preference for lithium fluoride (col. 2, ll. 16-18), Hung
clearly discloses other alkali metal fluorides (i.e., heavy alkali metal
halides), including potassium fluoride, cesium fluoride and rubidium
fluoride as desirable materials for the non-conductive (buffer) layer (col. 2,
ll. 49-57; compare appealed dependent claim 2). Secondly, Hung teaches
that “[e]lectrode 13 can be deposited by many conventional means, such as
evaporation, sputtering, laser ablation and chemical vapor deposition” (col.
3, ll. 11-13). Thus, a prima facie case exists for concluding that Hung’s
disclosure would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a
heavy alkali metal halide, such as potassium fluoride, rubidium fluoride or
cesium fluoride, to form the non-conductive buffer layer and to select
sputtering as a method to deposit the cathode over the non-conductive buffer
layer.
Appellants argue that “Hung . . . specifies deposition by thermal
evaporation in all of the examples relating to OLED fabrication” (Br. para.
bridging 6 and 7) and that “all of the examples of Hung . . . form the [buffer]
layer . . . from a material that is outside appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] claims”
(Br. 6).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner contends that a
“teaching outside of appellant's [sic, Appellants’] claims does not negate the
teachings of a buffer layer and sputtered cathode layer that are with[in]
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013