Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
efficiency, long service life, and high quality of display (see col. 4, lines 26-
28)” (Answer 5). Based on the record before us, the Examiner’s motivation
seems reasonable. Since Appellants’ argument does not expressly address
the Examiner’s discussion of motivation or suggestion, we agree with the
Examiner’s above conclusion of obviousness for the reasons given by the
Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hung in view of Nakaya.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HUNG IN VIEW OF CHEN
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Hung in view of Chen.
The Examiner relies on Chen to teach “an EL device comprising a . . .
luminescent layer consisting of a host material (such as Alq) doped with one
or more components of fluorescent dyes to achieve highly efficient EL
devices” (id.). Thus, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a doped Alq
luminescent material in the Hung . . . device, because Chen teach such a
doped luminescent material provides the benefit of improved light emission
efficiency” (id.).
Appellants argue that “[t]here is no motivation to combine Hung . . .
and Chen et al. to produce a protective buffer layer or a sputtered cathode”
(Br. 8).
The Examiner responds that Chen “is relied upon to teach the
common addition of dopants in a light emitting layer of an organic
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013