Appeal 2006-1260
Application 09/956,411
electroluminescent device (OLED) [and that] [s]uch an addition provides the
benefit of improved light emission and efficiency” (Answer 9).
Again, based on the record before us, the Examiner’s motivation
seems reasonable. Further, Appellants’ argument does not expressly address
the Examiner’s discussion of motivation or suggestion for combining the
Hung and Chen references. Thus, we again agree with the Examiner’s
above conclusion of obviousness for the reasons given by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hung in view of Chen.
CONCLUSION
In summary,
1. we have reversed the rejection of claims 7, 8, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Aziz;
2. we have affirmed the rejection of claims 2, 7, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hung;
3. we have affirmed the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hung, as applied to independent claim 17, in
view of Nakaya; and
4. we have affirmed the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hung in view of Chen.
Since all claims under appeal are subject to sustained rejections, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting all appealed claims is affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013