Appeal 2007-1261
Application 10/196,523
aluminum, claim 7 recites three other light emitting molecules as well as
their derivatives and blends thereof. Because none of these other claim 7
light emitting molecules or the claimed derivatives and blends are disclosed
on Specification page 10 as molecular electron transport layer materials of
the "second embodiment" defined by independent claim 1, the Examiner
considers claim 7 to violate the written description requirement with respect
to each of the claim 7 light emitting molecules except tris(8-quinolinolato)
(Answer 3).
The Appellants argue that the original claims and Specification
disclosure provide written description support for the use of the claim 7
molecules or compounds as electron transport materials in the alternating
layers of claim 1 (Br. 6-7). More specifically, the Appellants point out that
Specification page 5 broadly discloses the emitting layer may comprise
multiple layers and that Specification page 6 discloses the light emitting
molecules which may be used in the emitting layer include those same
molecules recited in claim 7 (Reply Br. 3). The Appellants believe these
disclosures on pages 5 and 6, as well as the original claims, provide
descriptive support for use of the claim 7 molecules in the alternating layer
embodiment of claim 1 (id. at 4).
The record before us contains no evidence the Appellants' original
disclosure would have conveyed to an artisan that Appellants had possession
of the claim 7/1 invention at the time the application was filed. Certainly,
possession is not evinced by the broad disclosure that the light emitting layer
may comprise multiple layers (Specification 5) and that the light emitting
molecules which may be used in the emitting layer include those recited in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013