Ex Parte Heuser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2016

11658772 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111658,772 03/10/2008
27799 7590 08/11/2016
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park A venue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Karsten Heuser
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
5367-282PUS-299636 2001
EXAMINER
CHRISS, JENNIFER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentsecretary@cozen.com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARSTEN HEUSER, ARVID HUNZE,
and ANDREAS KANITZ
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Majority by OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
Opinion Dissenting by NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 8 and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim an organic light emitting diode or illuminated
display. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An organic light emitting diode or illuminated display,
compnsmg:
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
at least one substrate;
a lower, at least semitransparent electrode;
a hole-conducting layer;
an emitter layer; and
an upper electrode;
wherein tetravalent azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex
units copolymerized in a copolymer with monomer units of
polyfluorene, wherein a monomer unit is 9, 9-dialkylfluorene,
wherein the copolymer is introduced into at least one of the
layers, wherein the azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex units act
as electron-transporting components and comprise a structural
unit in accordance with the relationship:
LA being a Lewis acid central atom, wherein the Lewis acid
central atom is boron, L 1 and L2 being monodentate alkoxy or
alkyl organic radicals, wherein the bidentate ligand of the
azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex units are derivatives of
8-hydroxyquinoline and wherein the 9, 9-dialkyltluorene units
are linked to the azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex units via the
bidentate ligands of the 8-hydroxyquinoline-derivatives.
Woo
Higashi
Wang (Wang '516)
Wang (Wang '351)
Tanaka
Yamazaki
The References
US 2001/0026878 A 1
US 6,406,804 Bl
US 2005/0156516 Al
US 2002/0028351 Al
US 2005/0106413 Al
JP 2003-229275 A
The Rejections
Oct. 4, 2001
June 18, 2002
July 21, 2005
Mar. 7, 2002
May 19, 2005
Aug. 15, 2003
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1
and 11 over Higashi in view of Yamazaki, Wang '351 and either Woo or
2
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
Wang '516, and claim 8 over Higashi in view of Yamazaki, Wang '351,
either Woo or Wang '516, and Tanaka.
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need address only the sole independent
claim, i.e., claim 1. 1
Higashi discloses an organic electroluminescent device comprising a
light-emitting layer containing a molecular compound having an electron-
transporting unit and a hole-transporting unit bonded to each other either
directly or via a linking group (col. 2, 11. 13-21). The disclosed electron-
transporting units include oxadiazole derivatives and quinoline complex
derivatives, the disclosed hole-transporting units include triphenylamines,
and the disclosed linking groups include alkylene groups (col. 2, 11. 45-61 ).
"The linking group may form a part of the electron-transporting unit or the
hole-transporting unit" (col. 2, 11. 61-62). One ofHigashi's preferred
molecular compounds (Formula 14) has as an electron-transporting unit two
oxadiazoles attached to a fluorene derivative, and each oxadiazole has an
arylene linkage to a two-triphenylamine hole-transporting unit (col. 8, 1. 51 -
col. 9, 1. 10). The molecular compound also can be a copolymer having an
electron-transporting unit and a hole-transporting unit, preferably both as
repeating units therein (col. 10, 11. 6-10). Formula 16 shows a copolymer
having repeating units of a quinoline complex-type electron-transporting
unit and a two-triphenylamine hole-transporting unit (col. 10).
1 The Examiner does not rely upon Tanaka for any disclosure that remedies
the deficiency in the references applied to the independent claim (Ans. 7-8,
13-14).
3
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
The Examiner asserts that the arylene linking group Higashi's
Formula 14 is a fluorene derivative (Ans. 15) and that "[d]ue to the small
number of elements exemplified in the set and closely related structural
nature of the exemplified biphenyl linking group elements one would at once
envisage the fluorene group of Higashi copolymerized with an
azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex" (Ans. 3).
The Examiner does not establish that Higashi's arylene linking group
is a fluorene derivative. Thus, the Examiner has not established a basis for
the assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage a
fluorene group copolymerized with anything, let alone Higashi's quinolone-
type electron-transporting unit (col. 10, Formula 16) which apparently is
what the Examiner refers to as an azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex.
Nor does the Examiner establish, regarding the Appellants' claim l's
requirement that "the 9,9-dialkylfluorene units are linked to the
azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex units via the bidentate ligands of the 8-
hydroxyquinoline-derivatives", that Higashi would have suggested that
linkage between fluorene copolymer units and an azahetarylene/Lewis acid
complex. In that regard the Examiner asserts (Ans. 15):
Appellants' points of attachment and linkages must be
viewed in the context of the comprising transitional term of the
instant claim(s). In both the prior art and the instant claims the
fluorene and hydroxyquinoline derivatives form the main
polymer chain [which, as indicated above, the Examiner has not
established]. The[ re] is no requirement in the instant claims
that the hydroxyquinoline be directly bonded to the fluorene.
The Lewis acid and fluorene need only be attached via the
hydroxyquinoline.
4
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
That assertion does not establish that Higashi would have suggested the
Appellants' claim l's required linkage between fluorene copolymer units
and an azahetarylene/Lewis acid complex via the bidentate ligands of 8-
hydroxyquinoline-derivatives.
The Examiner relies upon Woo (,-i 3) and Wang '516 (,-i 124) for
disclosures of light-emitting copolymers comprising fluorene repeating
units, but not for any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed
deficiencies in Higashi (Ans. 6-7, 12-13).
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient
to support a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants' claimed
invention. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A
rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these
facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1 and 11 over Higashi
in view of Yamazaki, Wang '351 and either Woo or Wang '516, and claim 8
over Higashi in view of Yamazaki, Wang '351, either Woo or Wang '516,
and Tanaka are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
5
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KARSTEN HEUSER, ARVID HUNZE,
and ANDREAS KANITZ
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
Technology Center 1700
NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
Because, in my view, Appellants have not shown harmful error in the
appealed rejections, I dissent, with respect.
The majority finds that "[t]he Examiner does not establish that
Higashi's arylene linking group is a fluorene derivative" (Op. 4, 1st full
para.), and concludes for this reason alone that a basis for the conclusion that
the artisan would not at once envisage a fluorene group co-polymerized with
anything (id.). In my view, the Majority's understanding of the rejection-
and also Appellants' understanding of the rejection-misses the point.
Higashi compound 14 is shown below:
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
{Higashi compound ( 14)}
The electron transporting unit (lower left) is formed by the two
oxadiazole rings that are linked by the fluorene group. The hole-
transporting units( upper left; right) are the pairs of tri-arylamine groups,
which are linked by a direct bond. To the extent the Examiner means that
the biphenyl group between the amine nitrogen and the oxadiazole ring links
the electron-transporting unit to the hole-transporting unit, this is arguably
error, as it contravenes the teaching that "it is also preferable that the hole-
transporting unit is of a combination of triphenylamines and stilbene
derivatives, or any one of the compounds." (Higashi, col. 2, 11. 53-56;
emphasis added.) In this regard, it cannot be denied that the Examiner refers
expressly to the "closely related structural nature of the exemplified
biphenyl linking group elements" (Final Act. 3, last para.).
On the other hand, Higashi refers to "linking groups" both as groups
that link the hole transporting unit to the electron transporting unit, as well a
group that "may form part of the electron-transporting unit or the hole
transporting unit." (Higashi, col. 2, 11. 61-62; col. 19, 11. 8-9.) In general,
Higashi instructs that "[t]he linking group is not specifically defined,
provided that it chemically links the electron-transporting unit and the hole-
transporting unit in the molecular compound without interfering with the
functions of the units, and it includes a single bond." (Higashi, col. 18,
11. 41--43; emphasis added.) The term "single bond" denotes a direct link
between the units, as Higashi teaches in the phrase, "a molecular compound
having an electron-transporting unit and a hold-transporting unit bonded to
each other directly or via a linking group." (Higashi, col. 2, 11. 15-17.)
2
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
Thus, l understand the Examiner to hold that substitution of one
arylene linking group-here, divalent fluorenyl-for another (phenylene )-
obvious. 2' 3
Moreover, in an exemplary manner, the Examiner sets out three
differences between the disclosures of Higashi and the claimed invention,
and proceeds to explain why the invention, as a whole, would have been
obvious in view of the additional cited prior art. In particular, the
differences are: 9,9'-diphenyl- instead of9,9'-dialkyl-fluorene (Woo);
aluminum instead of boron as the central atom of the Lewis acid moiety
(Yamazaki); and the absence of alkyl or alkoxy monodentate ligands to the
Lewis acid central atom (Wang '351. (Final Act. 5, 11. 3-7; 10, last line,
to 11, 1. 4.) The Examiner makes findings regarding Woo, Yamazaki, and
Wang, respectively, and explains why these teachings would have provided
a reasonable expectation of substituting the required moieties. (Id. at 5-7.)
2 I am not unmindful that a strict reading of the words of the rejection leads
to a failure of the prima facie case; but to fail to acknowledge what seems to
be the clear intent of the rejection, in my view, elevates form over reason,
and ends, prematurely, the exploration of the proper scope of patentable
subject matter in this application. As to the ultimate disposition, I neither
express nor imply an opinion one way or the other.
3 Yet another possible explanation of the rejection is the substitution of a
divalent arylene linking group, such as fluorenylene, for a direct linkage
(i.e., a linkage that is a single bond). It should be emphasized that it is the
chemical linkage without interference with the function of the charge
transporting units, not the nomenclature or the somewhat arbitrary
sectioning of molecules into charge-transporting units and linkages, that
must govern the analysis.
3
Appeal2014-009136
Application 11/658,772
Appellants point out that the remaining references do not discuss the
role of the disclosed compounds as electron-transporting complexes or, for
Woo (regarding the fluorenyl linking group), as linking groups in electron-
transporting complexes. (Br. 7.)
I do not find these arguments persuasive of harmful error because
Appellants do not explain why the differences in applications would have
diminished the reasonable expectation that the substitution of similar
moieties would result in compounds in layers having similar properties.
On the present record, I would affirm the rejections of record, and
I therefore dissent, respectfully.
4