Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUNG IN VIEW OF NAKAYA
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hung, as applied to independent claim 17, in view of
Nakaya.
The Examiner relies on Nakaya to teach “cathodes comprising Mg,
Zr, and aluminum formed from multiple targets using DC voltage applied
across the EL device in a dry argon atmosphere” (Answer 5). According to
the Examiner:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to have used and manufactured a cathode
according to the teachings of Nakaya . . . for the
Hung et al. device, because Nakaya . . . teaches
such a cathode provides a device with improved
luminance, efficiency, long service life, and high
quality of display (see col. 4, lines 26-28). [Id.]
Appellants argue that “Nakaya . . . does not overcome the failure of
Hung to suggest a use of a heavy alkaline [sic, alkali] metal halide buffer
layer when sputtering is used for cathode deposition” (Br. 7). In addition,
Appellants argue that the Examiner provides “no motivation or suggestion to
combine the two references” (Br. 8) and that “[t]he two references suggest
structures so contrary that their combination would appear inoperative” (id.).
The Examiner responds that “Nakaya . . ., is relied upon to teach a
specific type of sputtering and commonly used targets in the art of
electroluminescent device manufacturing” (Answer 9).
Nakaya generally explains the sputtering method in the process of
making an electrode on an OLED (Abstract). Contrary to Appellants’
argument, the Examiner expressly states the motivation or suggestion to
combine the references as “[providing] a device with improved luminance,
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013