Appeal 2007-0410
Application 10/414,066
Claims 1, 4, 5, 13, 17, 18, 24, 25, 28-30, and 35-40 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mori in view of
Hosokawa and Burroughs.
Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group. Therefore,
we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we decide this appeal.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not established adequate
motivation to support combining a combination of materials from
Hosokawa and Burroughes based on the teachings of Mori so as to render
the composition of claim 1 prima facie obvious (Br. 14-15).
The Examiner, on the other hand, contends that the applied references,
including Mori, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the above-described light emissive organic polymer of Burroughes with the
light emissive compound (A-7) of Hosokawa in a manner so as to result in
the claimed subject matter. In this regard, the Examiner maintains that:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to have combined the luminescent materials taught by both
Hosokawa et al. and Burroughes et al. in a mixed luminescent
layer for an organic light emitting device according to Mori et
al., because both Hosokawa et al. and Burroughes et al. teach
the respective materials are suitable for a light emitting layer
and primary reference Mori et al. teaches a mixture of light
emitting compounds for forming a luminescent layer.
Answer 4-5.
Appellants do not dispute that compound (A-7) of Hosokawa
corresponds to Appellants’ first compound. Nor do Appellants contest that
their second compound embraces the F8BT polymer of Burroughes.
Consequently, the dispositive question raised in this appeal is: Has
the Examiner furnished an adequate reason (motivation) for one of ordinary
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013