Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
Appellants have pointed to no disclosure of Hung that supports the
argument under consideration. As noted by the Examiner, Hung has no
express disclosure limiting the use of sputtering to depositing cathode layers
for semiconductor (as opposed to OLED) fabrication. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that Hung is not limited as argued by Appellants.
Thus, a prima facie case exists for concluding that “[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the method
of sputtering for forming the cathode layer and have selected cesium
fluoride, rubidium fluoride, or potassium fluoride as the non-conducting
layer (per the buffer layer)” for the reasons set forth by the Examiner
(Answer 4).
Appellants have submitted an affidavit by Joseph K. Madathil under
37 C.F.R. § 1.132 for consideration (Br. 7). It is not entirely clear from the
record how the affidavit relates to the rejection before us. It is not the
function of the Board to ferret out particular evidence from the record, which
might support Appellants’ assertion of nonobviousness. Compare In re
Borkowski, 505 F.2d 713, 719, 184 USPQ 29, 33 (CCPA 1974). Therefore,
the § 1.132 affidavit will be considered only in the context of the
Appellants’ reliance on it as expressed in the Brief. According to
Appellants’ contention in the Brief, the affidavit shows that (1) Hung’s
preferred thicknesses (0.5 – 1.0 nm) for the buffer layer are “ineffective in
reducing sputtering damage to the electron transport layer” (Br. 7) and (2)
“LiF is relatively unsuitable as buffer layer to protect against sputter
damage” (id.).
Regarding Hung’s preferred thicknesses for the buffer layer, the
Examiner notes that “Hung . . . actually discloses a larger thickness range,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013