Ex Parte Epstein et al - Page 5

                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