Ex Parte Kawamura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2017

11766281 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/766,281 06/21/2007 Masahiro Kawamura 310953US8X 9081
22850 7590 08/18/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
YANG, JAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/18/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAHIRO KAWAMURA,
EMIKO KAMBE, AKIFUMI NAKAMURA, YASUNORI KIJIMA,
TADAHIKO YOSHINAGA, and SHIGEYUKI MATSUNAMI
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
Technology Center 1700
Before MARKNAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GEORGE C. BEST,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 4, 10—14, 19, 20, and 22—26 of
Application 11/766,281 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(November 20, 2014). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
A hearing was held on August 8, 2017.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part.
1 Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. and Sony Corp. are identified as the real parties
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
BACKGROUND
The ’281 Application describes organic electroluminescent devices.
Claim 19 is representative of the ’281 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief.
19. An organic electroluminescent device, comprising in the
order listed:
an anode;
a hole injection and transporting region;
an emitting layer comprising an organic compound; and
a cathode;
wherein the hole injection and transporting region
comprises a layer which is in contact with the emitting layer
and a layer between the layer in contact with the emitting layer
and the anode; wherein
the layer in contact with the emitting layer comprises a
compound of formula (8):
wherein
Arn and Arig are independently an aromatic hydrocarbon
group which may be optionally substituted or an aromatic
heterocyclic group which may be optionally substituted;
Rr, to Ris are each independently a hydrogen atom, a
halogen atom, an alkyl group, an aralkyl group, an alkenyl
group, a cyano group, an amino group, an acyl group, an
alkoxycarobonyl group, a carboxyl group, an alkoxy group, an
aryloxy group, an alkylsulfonyl group, a hydroxy group, an
amide group, an aromatic hydrocarbon ring group or an
(8)
2
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
aromatic heterocyclic group, each of which may be substituted
by a halogen atom, an alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an
alkoxycarbonyl group, an alkoxy group, an aryloxy group, a
dialkylamino group, an aromatic hydrocarbon ring group, an
acyl group, a haloalkyl group and a cyano group; and adjacent
atoms or groups of R6 to R15 may form a ring; and
the layer between the layer in contact with the emitting
layer and the anode comprises an amine derivative of formula
(4):
(4)
wherein
Ri and R2 are independently a substituent and may be
bonded to each other to form a saturated or unsaturated ring;
and
Ar7 to Ario are each independently an aromatic
hydrocarbon ring group having 6 to 60 nucleus carbon atoms
which may be optionally substituted or an aromatic heterocyclic
group having 5 to 60 nucleus atoms which may be optionally
substituted, and wherein the optional substituent on Ar7 to Ario
is selected from the group consisting of a halogen atom, an
alkyl group which may further be optionally substituted, an
alkoxy group which may further be optionally substituted, an
aromatic hydrocarbon group which may further be optionally
substituted and an aromatic heterocyclic group which may
further be optionally substituted, and wherein the further
optional substituent comprises one selected from the group
consisting of a halogen atom, an alkyl group, an alkoxy group,
an aromatic hydrocarbon group and an aromatic heterocyclic
group.
Appeal Br. 28—30 (emphasis added).
3
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains2 the following rejections:
1. Claims 11, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Ishihara,3
Igarashi,4 and Shimamura ’247.5 Answer 2.
2. Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, and
Ueda.6 Answer 6.
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Ishihara, Shimamura ’247, and Son.7 Answer
9.
4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, Shimamura ’247, and Chou.8
Answer 10.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 4, 10—14, 19, 20, 22,
24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,11, for failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Answer 15.
3 US 2003/0048072 Al, published March 13, 2003.
4 US 2001/0008711 Al, published July 19, 2001.
5 JP 2005-116247A, published April 28, 2005. We rely upon the translation
that is of record in this Application.
6 JP 2004-178896A, published June 24, 2004. We rely upon the translation
that is of record in this application.
7 US 2004/0113547 Al, published June 17, 2004.
8 Meng-Yen Chou et al., Electropolymerization of Starburst Triarylamines
and Their Application to Electrochromism and Electroluminescence, 16
Chem. Mater. 654 (2004).
4
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
5. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi,
Shimamura ’247, andKoene.9 Answer 12.
6. Claims 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi,
Shimamura ’247, and Shimamura ’756.10 Answer 13—14.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 11, 19, 23, 24, and 26 as
unpatentable over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, and Shimamura
’247. Answer 2.
Claims 19, 23, 24, and 26 are independent, and claim 11 depends from
claim 19. See Appeal Br. 27—36 (Claims App.). We address each of the
independent claims separately below. Because Appellants did not present
separate arguments for the patentability of claim 11, see id. at 13—21, it will
stand or fall with claim 19.
Claim 19. In rejecting claim 19, the Examiner found that Shimamura
’247 describes a compound that falls within the scope of formula 8 as set
forth in the claim. See Answer 4—5. In particular, the Examiner found that
Shimamura ’247 discloses a carbazole derivative identified as compound C-
7 as useful in a hole transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent
9 Bryan E. Koene et al., Asymmetric Triaryldiamines as Thermally Stable
Hole Transporting Layers for Organic Light-Emitting Devices, 10 Chem.
Mater. 2235 (1998).
10 JP 2000-302756, published October 31, 2000.
5
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
device. Id. (citing Shimamura ’247 155). For convenience, we reproduce
the structure of compound C-7 below:
Compound C-7 falls within the scope of formula 8 only if substituent Ru
can be a 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-naphthyl)amino phenyl group.
The relevant portion of claim 19 reads:
Rr, to Ris are each independently a hydrogen atom, a halogen
atom, an alkyl group, an aralkyl group, an alkenyl group, a
cyano group, an amino group, an acyl group, an
alkoxycarobonyl group, a carboxyl group, an alkoxy group, an
aryloxy group, an alkylsulfonyl group, a hydroxy group, an
amide group, an aromatic hydrocarbon ring group or an
aromatic heterocyclic group,
each of which may be substituted by a halogen atom, an
alkyl group, an alkenyl group, an alkoxycarbonyl group,
an alkoxy group, an aryloxy group, a dialkylamino group,
an aromatic hydrocarbon ring group, an acyl group, a
haloalkyl group and a cyano group; and
adjacent atoms or groups of R.6 to R15 may form a ring ....
Appeal Br. 28 (paragraphing, indentation, and emphasis added).
The Examiner found that the 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-naphthyl)amino
phenyl group falls within claim 19’s definition of Rm because the claim
states that Ru can be an amino group. Answer 16. For the purpose of
examining claim 19, the Examiner regards the 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-
6
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
naphthyl)amino phenyl group in compound C-7 as a (triaryl)amino
substituent. Id.
We determine that these findings are based upon an erroneous
understanding of the scope of claim 19. During prosecution, an
application’s claims are given their broadest reasonable scope consistent
with the specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words used in a claim must be read in light of
the specification, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention. Id. In this case, we conclude that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood claim 19’s
language “R.6 to R15 are each independently ... an amino group” to
encompass substituents in which the amino nitrogen is coupled directly to
the substituted aromatic ring. Thus, the Examiner’s position is based upon
an unreasonably broad claim interpretation.
Shimamura ’247’s 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-naphthyl)amino phenyl group
does not does not fall within claim 19’s definition of substituent Ri4.
Although some substituted phenyl groups fall within claim 19’s definition,
the (N-phenyl, N-naphthyl)amino group is not one of the specified
substituents that can be attached to the aromatic hydrocarbon ring group.
We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 19. Accordingly, we also
reverse the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 23. In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner found that Shimamura
’247 describes a compound that falls within the scope of formula 8 as set
forth in the claim. See Answer 4—5. In particular, the Examiner found that
Shimamura ’247 discloses a carbazole derivative identified as compound
C-7 as useful in a hole transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent
7
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
device. Id. (citing Shimamura ’247 155). Appellants do not contest this
finding. See Appeal Br. 15—16.
We, therefore, must consider Appellants’ other arguments for reversal
of this rejection.
In rejecting claim 23, the Examiner found that Ishihara describes an
organic electroluminescent device having the structure depicted in Ishihara’s
Figure 1A. Answer 3. We reproduce Ishihara’s Figure 1A below.
F1G.1A
Figure 1A is a schematic cross-sectional view of an organic light-emitting
element. Ishihara 163. In Figure 1A, layer 102 is a transparent electrode
that functions as the anode in the electroluminescent device. Id. 175. Fayer
103 is an organic hole injection layer comprising copper phthalocyanine. Id.
178. Fayer 104 is an organic hole transporting layer comprising 4,4'-bis[N-
(l-naphthyl)-N-phenylamino]-biphenyl (NPD). Id. H 78—79. Fayer 105 is
an organic light-emitting layer. Id. 1 80. Fayer 106 is an organic electron-
transport layer. Id. 1 81. Fayer 107 is a transparent electrode that functions
as a cathode. Id. H 82—83.
The Examiner proposes modifying Ishihara’s electroluminescent
device in view of Igarashi’s disclosure of an organic electroluminescent
8
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
device comprising a hole transporting layer that can be a multilayer structure
with each layer each comprising different compositions. Answer 3^4 (citing
Igarashi 144). The effect of this proposed modification is to split Ishihara’s
layer 104 into two sublayers each of which can comprise NPD. Id. at 4.
(For convenience, we will refer to the sublayer which contacts hole injection
layer 103 as 104 A and the sublayer which contacts organic light-emitting
layer 105 as 104B.) The Examiner further finds that NPD is a compound
that satisfies formula 4 as set forth in claim 23. Id. at 3.
The Examiner proposes further modifying the combination of Ishihara
and Igarashi in view of Shimamura ’247’s disclosure that compound C-7 can
function as a hole transporting material in an organic electroluminescent
device. Id. at 4—5. Specifically, the Examiner proposes using compound
C-7 as one of the compounds used in the hole transporting layers of the
modified version of Ishihara. Id. at 5—6. The Examiner does not specify
whether compound C-7 is present in sublayer 104A, sublayer 104B, or both
sublayers. Id. The Examiner further finds that Shimamura ’247’s
compound C-7 satisfies formula 8 as set forth in claim 23. Id. at 5.
We cannot affirm the rejection of claim 23 because the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness. In relevant part, claim 23
recites:
23. An organic electroluminescent device, comprising in the
order listed:
an anode;
a hole injection layer;
a hole transporting layer;
an emitting layer comprising an organic compound; and
a cathode;
9
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
wherein
the hole transporting layer is in contact with the emitting
layer and comprises a compound of formula (8):
. . . ; and
the hole injection layer comprises an amine derivative of
formula (4): ....
Answer 30-31 (emphasis added).
As can be seen, claim 23 specifically requires the presence of a hole
injection layer comprising a compound of formula (4).11 In the rejection set
forth in the Answer, the Examiner finds that the combination of Ishihara,
Igarashi, and Shimamura ’247 describes an electroluminescent device
11 Claim 23’s language differs from that of claim 19, which does not specify
that the compound of formula (4) must be located in the hole injection layer.
The relevant portion of claim 19 reads:
19. An organic electroluminescent device, comprising in the
order listed:
an anode;
a hole injection and transporting region;
wherein the hole injection and transporting region
comprises a layer which is in contact with the emitting layer
and a layer between the layer in contact with the emitting layer
and the anode; wherein
the layer between the layer in contact with the emitting
layer and the anode comprises an amine derivative of formula
(4):
Appeal Br. 28—30 (emphasis added).
10
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
comprising a hole injection layer corresponding to Ishihara’s layer 103.
Answer 3—5. Ishihara describes layer 103 as comprising copper
phthalocyanine. Ishihara 178. The Examiner relies upon NPD as the
compound of formula (4). Answer 3. NPD, however, is located in hole
transporting sublayers 104A and 104B. See Answer 4—5; Ishihara ]Hf 78—79.
The Examiner does not find that copper phthalocyanine satisfies formula (4).
Nor does the Examiner explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention would have used NPD in Ishihara’s hole
injection layer 103 either instead of or in addition to the copper
phthalocyanine described in Ishihara.
Thus, we reverse the rejection of claim 23.
Claim 24. In rejecting claim 24, the Examiner found that Shimamura
’247 describes a compound that falls within the scope of formula 8 as set
forth in the claim. See Answer 4—5. In particular, the Examiner found that
Shimamura ’247 discloses a carbazole derivative identified as compound
C-7 as useful in a whole transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent
device. Id. (citing Shimamura ’247 1 55). Compound C-7 falls within the
scope of formula 8 only if substituent Ri4 can be a 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-
naphthyljamino phenyl group.
The relevant portion of claim 24 reads:
Rm and Ris are each independently a hydrogen atom, a halogen
atom, an alkyl group, an aralkyl group, an alkenyl group, a
cyano group, an amino group, an acyl group, an
alkoxycarobonyl [sic, alkoxycarbonyl] group, a carboxyl group,
an alkoxy group, an aryloxy group, an alkylsulfonyl group, a
hydroxy group, an amide group, or an aromatic heterocyclic
group, each of which may be substituted ....
Appeal Br. 28 (emphasis added).
11
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
The Examiner found that the 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-naphthyl)amino
phenyl group falls within claim 24’s definition of Ru because the claim
states that Ri4 can be an amino group. Answer 16. For the purpose of
examining claim 24, the Examiner regards the 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-
naphthyl)amino phenyl group in compound C-7 as a (triaryl)amino
substituent. Id.
We determine that these findings are based upon an erroneous
understanding of the scope of claim 24. During prosecution, an
application’s claims are given their broadest reasonable scope consistent
with the specification. Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. The
words used in a claim must be read in light of the specification, as it would
have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Id. We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood claim 24’s language “Ru and R15 are each independently
... an amino group” to encompass substituents in which the amino nitrogen
is coupled directly to the substituted aromatic ring. Thus, the Examiner’s
position is based upon an unreasonably broad claim interpretation.
As defined in claim 24, substituent Ri4 may not be an aromatic ring
group, whether substituted or unsubstituted. We, therefore, reverse the
rejection of claim 24.
Claim 26. In rejecting claim 26, the Examiner found that Shimamura
’247 describes a compound that falls within the scope of formula 8 as set
forth in the claim. Sec Answer 4—5. In particular, the Examiner found that
Shimamura discloses a carbazole derivative identified as compound C-7 as
useful in a hole transporting layer of an organic electroluminescent device.
Id. (citing Shimamura ’247 155). Compound C-7 falls within the scope of
12
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
formula 8 only if substituent Ri4 can be a 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-naphthyl)amino
phenyl group.
The relevant portion of claim 26 reads:
Rr, to Ris are each independently a hydrogen atom, a halogen
atom, an alkyl group, an aralkyl group, an alkenyl group, a
cyano group, an amino group, an acyl group, an
alkoxycarobonyl group, a carboxyl group, an alkoxy group, an
aryloxy group, an alkylsulfonyl group, a hydroxy group, an
amide group, an aromatic hydrocarbon ring group or an
aromatic heterocyclic group; and adjacent atoms or groups of
R-6 to R15 may form a ring ....
Appeal Br. 35 (emphasis added).
The Examiner found that the 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-naphthyl)amino
phenyl group falls within claim 26’s definition of Ru because claim 26
includes compound in which Ri4 is an aromatic hydrocarbon ring group and
does not expressly require the aromatic hydrocarbon ring group to be
unsubstituted. Answer 16.
The Examiner’s determination is based upon an overly broad
interpretation of claim 26. We conclude that a person having ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would have understood claim 26 as
being limited to unsubstituted aromatic hydrocarbon ring groups because
each of the other independent claims specifically encompasses further
substitution of substituents comprising Ri4. A person of ordinary skill in the
art, therefore, would have understood that the ’281 Application’s claims
specifically state when further substitution is allowed.
A substituted phenyl group such as the 4-(N-phenyl, N-l-
naphthyl)amino phenyl group present in Shimamura ’247’s compound C-7
does not fall within the definition of substituent Ri4 that is recited in claim
26. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 26.
13
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 25 as unpatentable
over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, and Ueda. Answer 6. The
substantive difference between Rejection 1 and Rejection 2 is that in
Rejection 2, the Examiner relies upon Ueda rather than Shimamura ’247 to
describe or suggest the compound of formula (8). Compare Answer 3—6
with Answer 6—9. In particular, the Examiner finds that Ueda’s
compound 14 corresponds to the claimed compound of formula (8). Answer
8—9 (citing Ueda Tflf 23, 67, 137). Ueda’s compound 14 is depicted below:
H*C,
Ueda 123.
Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection on the basis of the
limitations of claim 24. Appeal Br. 21. Accordingly, claim 25 will stand or
fall with claim 24. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner found that the combination of Ishihara and Igarashi
described or suggested every element of claim 24 except for the compound
of formula 8. Answer 3^4. In particular, the Examiner found that the
combination of Ishihara and Igarashi describes or suggests
an organic EL device comprising a hole-injecting/transporting
region wherein the hole-transporting layers can comprise NPD;
hence, the sequence would thus be as follows near the hole-
injecting/transporting region: light-emitting layer, hole­
transporting layer (layer in contact with the emitting layer),
hole-transporting layer, hole-injecting layer, and anode,
14
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
wherein the hole-transporting layers can comprise NPD. . . .
However, Ishihara et al. in view of Igarashi does not explicitly
[describe or suggest] a configuration in which the region further
contains the material represented by formula (8) as defined by
the Appellant.
Id. at 4.
Appellants argue that Rejection 2 should be reversed because Ueda
does not remedy the failures in the combination of Ishihara and Igarashi that
Appellants identified in their discussion of Rejection 1. See Appeal Br. 21—
23. In particular, Appellants argue that these findings by the Examiner are
erroneous because: (1) the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason for
a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have
chosen to use NPD in the “layer between the layer in contact with the
emitting layer and the anode” and the carbazole derivative satisfying claim
24’s formula (8) in the layer in contact with the emitting layer, id. at 16—17;
(2) the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason for a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have chosen to
combine Ishihara and Igarashi, id. at 17—18; (3) the claimed order of layers
provides an unexpectedly improved performance in an organic EL device,
id. at 19-20; and (4) the Examiner erred by finding that Ueda describes or
suggests the use of compound 14 in a hole-transporting layer, id. at 21—23.
For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
First, Appellants’ argument regarding the “stacking order” of the
layers with the compounds of formula (8) and formula (4) of claim 24
misapprehends the Examiner’s statement of the rejection. As the Examiner
explained, the Examiner found that Igarashi suggests replacing the single
hole-transporting layer in Ishihara’s organic EL device with a multilayer
15
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
hole-transporting structure. See Answer 3^1; 17—18. The Examiner further
found that NPD could be present in either or both of the hole-transporting
layers in the modified device. Id. Appellants have not demonstrated, and
we do not discern, reversible error in these findings.
Appellants reply that the “stacking order” is one of the key features of
the invention. See Reply Br. 7—8. This argument is not persuasive because
claim 24 does not preclude the presence of NPD in both the layer adjacent to
the emitting layer and the layer between the layer adjacent to the emitting
layer and the anode.
Second, we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification
simply replaces one structure (i.e., the single layer hole-transporting layer of
Ishihara) with an equivalent structure (i.e., Igarashi’s multiple layer hole­
transporting region). As the Supreme Court has explained, “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int 7 Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Third, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ assertion that the Jinde
Declaration12 provides evidence of unexpected results sufficient to rebut the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. As an initial matter, we note
that Appellants have not provided any evidence, only attorney argument,
that the results reported in the Jinde Declaration would have been
unexpected by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. Furthermore, the Jinde Declaration provides a limited number of
exemplary devices and does not explain why those few examples are
12 Filed October 9, 2014.
16
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
representative of the full scope of the claim. We conclude that the Jinde
Declaration is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claim 24.
Fourth, Appellants argue that Ueda only describes the use of its
compound 14 in the light-emitting layer. Appellants argue that the
Examiner erred by finding that Ueda suggests that compound 14 could be
used in a hole-transporting layer. Although the only exemplary use of
compound 14 set forth in Ueda is in the light emitting layer, see Ueda
197—206, Ueda does teach that it especially preferred to use aromatic
tertiary-amine compounds as a whole-transporting material, see id. 1137.
Because compound 14 is an aromatic tertiary-amine, we do not discern
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Ueda describes or suggests
the use of its compound 14 in a hole-transporting layer.
We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claims 24 and 25 as
unpatentable over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, and Ueda.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claim 10 as unpatentable over the
combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, Shimamura ’247, and Son. Answer 9.
As discussed above, we have reversed the rejection of claim 19—the
independent claim from which claim 10 depends. Because the Examiner
does not rely upon Son to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 19
discussed above, we also reverse the rejection of claim 10.
Rejection 4. The Examiner rejected claim 4 as unpatentable over the
combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, Shimamura ’247, and Chou. Answer 10.
As discussed above, we have reversed the rejection of claim 19—the
independent claim from which claim 4 depends. Because the Examiner does
not rely upon Chou to cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 19
discussed above, we also reverse the rejection of claim 4.
17
Appeal 2016-002650
Application 11/766,281
Rejection 5. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 as unpatentable
over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, Shimamura ’247, and Koene.
Answer 12.
As discussed above, we have reversed the rejection of claim 19—the
independent claim from which claims 12 and 13 depend. Because the
Examiner does not rely upon Koene to cure the deficiencies in the rejection
of claim 19 discussed above, we also reverse the rejection of claims 12 and
13.
Rejection 6. The Examiner rejected claims 14 and 22 as unpatentable
over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, Shimamura ’247, and Shimamura
’756. Answer 13—14.
As discussed above, we have reversed the rejection of claim 19—the
independent claim from which claims 14 and 22 depend. Because the
Examiner does not rely upon Shimamura ’756 to cure the deficiencies in the
rejection of claim 19 discussed above, we also reverse the rejection of claims
Hand 22.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 24
and 25 as unpatentable over the combination of Ishihara, Igarashi, and Ueda.
We reverse each of the other rejections maintained in the Examiner’s
Answer.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
18