Ex Parte Kaiser et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 6, 201613001645 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/001,645 12/28/2010 123223 7590 05/10/2016 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) 222 Delaware A venue, Ste. 1410 Wilmington, DE 19801-1621 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joachim Kaiser 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. 074025-0201-US (287011) 3077 EXAMINER CHRISS, JENNIFER A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/10/2016 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): IPDocketWM@dbr.com penelope.mongelluzzo@dbr.com DBRIPDocket@dbr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOACHIM KAISER, HORST VESTWEBER, and SIMONE LEU 1 Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16, 17, 19-25, 27, 28, and 31.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Merck Patent GmbH as the real party in interest. Br. 2. We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed Dec. 28, 2010; Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed Oct. 25, 2013; Examiner's Answer ("Ans."); and Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br."). 2 Rejected claims 18 and 30 were canceled prior to the filing of the Appeal Brief. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 BACKGROUND The subject matter involved in this appeal relates to a white-emitting organic electroluminescent device ("OLED"). Spec. 1. Sole independent claim 16 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows: 16. An organic electroluminescent device comprising an anode, a cathode and at least three emitting layers A, B and C following one another in this sequence, wherein emitting layer B, which is located between layers A and C, comprises at least one phosphorescent compound, at least one hole-conducting material, and at least one aromatic ketone, wherein said aromatic ketone is a compound of formula (1 ): 0 q _)(_ Ar Ar formula ( 1) wherein Ar is on each occurrence, identically or differently, an aromatic ring system having 5 to 80 aromatic ring atoms, which in each case are optionally substituted by one or more groups R 1; R 1 is on each occurrence, identically or differently, H, D, F, Cl, Br, I, CHO, C(=O)Ar1, P(=O)(Ar1) 2, S(=O)Ar1, S(=0)2Ar1, CR2=CR2 Ar1, CN, N02, Si(R2)3, B(OR2)2, B(R2)2, B(N(R2)2)2, OS02R2, a straight-chain alkyl, alkoxy or thioalkoxy group having 1 to 40 C atoms or a branched or cyclic alkyl, alkoxy or thioalkoxy group having 3 to 40 C atoms or an alkenyl or alkynyl group having 2 to 40 C atoms, each of which are optionally substituted by one or more radicals R2, wherein one or more non-adjacent CH2 groups are optionally replaced by R2C=CR2, C=C, Si(R2)2, Ge(R2)2, Sn(R2)2, C=O, C=S, 2 Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 C=Se, C=NR2, P(=O)(R2), SO, S02, NR2, 0, S or CONR2, and wherein one or more H atoms are optionally replaced by F, Cl, Br, I, CN or N02, an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5 to 60 aromatic ring atoms, which in each case are optionally substituted by one or more radicals R2, an aryloxy or heteroaryloxy group having 5 to 60 aromatic ring atoms optionally substituted by one or more radicals R2, an aralkyl or heteroaralkyl group having 5 to 60 aromatic ring atoms optionally substituted by one or more radicals R2, or a combination of these systems; and wherein two or more adjacent substituents R 1 optionally define a mono- or polycyclic, aliphatic or aromatic ring system with one another; Ar1 is on each occurrence, identically or differently, an aromatic or heteroaromatic ring system having 5 to 40 aromatic ring atoms optionally substituted by one or more radicals R2; R2 is on each occurrence, identically or differently, H, D, CN or an aiiphatic, aromatic and/or heteroaromatic organic radical having 1 to 20 C atoms, wherein H atoms are optionally replaced by F; and wherein two or more adjacent substituents R2 optionally define a mono- or polycyclic, aliphatic or aromatic ring system with one another; and wherein the hole-conducting compound used in layer B is a carbazole derivative, triarylamine derivative, indolocarbazole derivative, or azacarbazole derivative. 3 Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 3 I. Claims 16, 17, 19--24, 27 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kashiwabara, 4 Gerhard '221, 5 and Gerhard '273. 6 II. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kashiwabara, Gerhard '221, Gerhard '273 and Oshiyama. 7 III. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kashiwabara, Gerhard '221, Gerhard '273 and Wang. 8 DISCUSSION I With regard to Rejection I, Appellants argue claims 16, 17, 19--24, 27 and 31 as a group. Br. 7-10. We select claim 16 as representative and decide the propriety of Rejection I based on the representative claim aione. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 17, 19--24, 27 and 31 stand or fall with claim 16. See id. The Examiner found that Kashiwabara discloses a white-emitting OLED comprising red, green and blue light-emitting layers provided sequentially between an anode and a cathode, wherein the green light- emitting layer carries a green emitting material in a mixed matrix of hole- 3 Ans. 2; Non-Final 3-13. 4 US 2006/0238113 Al, published Oct. 26, 2006 ("Kashiwabara"). 5 US 2006/0208221 Al, published Sep. 21, 2006 ("Gerhard '221 "). 6 US 2007/0164273 Al, published Jul. 19, 2007 ("Gerhard '273"). 7 US 2003/0198831 Al, published Oct. 23, 2003 ("Oshiyama"). 8 US 2006/0014046 Al, published Jan. 19, 2006 ("Wang"). 4 Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 transporting material and electron-transporting material. Final Act. 3, citing Kashiwabara at i-fi-16, 7, 10, 50. Acknowledging that Kashiwabara does not specify a phosphorescent compound as the disclosed green emitting material, or an aromatic ketone as the disclosed electron-conducting material, the Examiner found that Gerhard '221 teaches improved efficiency and voltage properties in an OLED when an aromatic ketone having a structure in accordance with Appellants' formula 1 is used as the host material for a green phosphorescent compound. Id. at 3--4, citing Gerhard '221 at i-fi-191, 168, 169. The Examiner additionally found that Gerhard '273 teaches that the ketone host materials disclosed in Gerhard '221 serve as electron-transporting materials. Id. at 4, citing Gerhard '273 at i-fi-f 14, 34. Appellants do not dispute the foregoing findings. See Br. 5-11. Based on those findings, the Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a green phosphorescent compound for Kashiwabara's green emitter, and an aromatic ketone described in Gerhard '221 and Gerhard '273 for Kashiwabara's electron-transporting component of the green light-emitting layer's mixed matrix. Id. at 4--5. Appellants present a series of arguments directed to the relied-upon references individually. Br. 7-8 ("Kashiwabara fails to teach or suggest the claimed ketone."); Id. at 8 ("Gerhard '221 does not teach a layer in which a hole-conducting material and its ketones are present together."); Id. ("Gerhard '273 ... does not mention a layer comprising both a hole- transport material and a ketone."). We find each of these arguments unpersuasive because they address the references individually, without regard to the collective teaching of the prior art which the Examiner relied 5 Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 upon in reaching the obviousness determination. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references."). Neither are we persuaded by Appellants' unelaborated argument that the disclosure of Gerhard '273 is "incompatible with that of Kashiwabara and Gerhard '221," Br. 9, merely because Gerhard '273 does not use a phosphorescent emitter. Here too, Appellants' argument disregards the nature of the Examiner's obviousness determination, which is based upon the collective teaching of the cited prior art-including Gerhard '221 which the Examiner found to disclose the use of a phosphorescent emitter. Appellants additionally contend that data reported in Table 1 of the Specification demonstrates that OLEDs made in accordance with the claimed invention exhibit an unexpected improvement in lifetime and efficiency. Br. 8-9. The Examiner found AppeUants' evidence wanting on the basis that the data presented in Table 1 are not commensurate in scope with Appellants' claims. Final Act. 8. We agree. See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCP A 1978) (showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claim). Here, Appellants' Example 1 involves one particular ketone in a mixed matrix, whereas claim 16 encompasses a host of different aromatic ketones. We additionally find Appellants' evidence deficient for the following reasons. With regard to lifetime values, Appellants point to Example 1 in Table 1 where it is reported that lifetime values ranged from 8,000 to 10,000 hours as compared with 5,000 to 6,000 hours for comparative Example 3. Br. 8-9. However, Example 2 in Table I-also characterized as conforming 6 Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 to the claimed invention-is reported to have exhibited a shorter lifetime relative to comparative Example 3. Spec. 44. We find these inconsistent data points contradictory to Appellants' assertion of unexpected results. Neither do Appellants point us to any evidence of record that suggests that any improvement in lifetime and/ or efficiency would have been unexpected. Rather, Appellants acknowledge that it was known that the use of ketones "leads to low operating voltages and long lifetimes." Spec. 6. On this record, we are not persuaded that the data presented in Table 1 demonstrate unexpected results sufficient to outweigh the Examiner's determination that it would have been obvious to provide an aromatic ketone, as described in Gerhard '221, as the electron-transporting component ofKashiwabara's mixed matrix. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16, 17, 19--24, 27 and 31 as unpatentable over Kashiwabara, Gerhard '221, and Gerhard '273. II-III Appellants solely rely on the same arguments presented in support of patentability of claim 16 to support the patentability of dependent claims 25 and 28. Br. 10-11. Accordingly, we sustain Rejections II-III for the same reasons given above in connection with Rejection I. 7 Appeal2014-008754 Application 13/001,645 DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended 37 C.F.R. § 1.136. AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation