Appeal 2007-1261
Application 10/196,523
claim 7 (Specification 6). This is because these light emitting molecules
include only one which is explicitly disclosed on Specification page 10 as a
suitable molecular electron transport layer material in the "second
embodiment" of alternating layers to which claim 1 is directed.
Stated differently, the molecular electron transport layer materials of
the second, alternating layer, embodiment disclosed on Specification page
10 and the light emitting molecules of the Appellants' non-alternating layer
embodiment disclosed on Specification page 6 (as well as Specification 7)
include a total of five distinct compounds plus an unknown number of
derivatives and blends. However, only a single one of these compounds is
disclosed as useful in both the alternating layer embodiment and the non-
alternating layer embodiment disclosed by Appellants. This very limited
degree of overlap would have led an artisan to believe that effective light
emitting molecules for the non-alternating layer embodiment would not
necessarily be effective molecular electron transport layer materials for the
alternating layer embodiment, and vice versa.
Under these circumstances, the record before us supports a
determination that claim 7 fails to comply with the written description
requirement in the manner discussed above. We hereby sustain, therefore,
the § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claim 7.
The § 103 rejections
The Appellants advance only a single argument against the § 103
rejections. Specifically, the Appellants assert error in the Examiner's finding
that the prior art method discussed by Tanabe (Figures 6-8; col. 1, ll. 24-65)
includes the here claimed step of "applying a conductive paste to said
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013