Appeal 2007-1764
Application 10/391,320
have recognized that poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene)-poly(styrene
sulfonate) was an anionic conductive polymer complex. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425,
208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The obviousness determination “not
only permits, but requires, consideration of common knowledge and
common sense.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H.
Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367-68, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1650 (Fed. Cir.
2006). “[A] prior art reference must be ‘considered together with the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As stated
above, Onda discloses suitability of using mixtures of polymer ions for
formation of the coating solution. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have reasonably expected that ionic polymer complexes could be
utilized in the invention of Onda. Appellants have not argued that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that poly(3,4-ethylene
dioxythiophene)-poly(styrene sulfonate) was not an anionic conductive
polymer complex suitable for use in the formation of multilayer thin films
formed by a layer-by-layer process.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013