Ex Parte Hayden et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

12737264 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121737,264 12/23/2010 Oliver Hayden
86528 7590 04/29/2016
Slayden Grnbert Beard PLLC
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 1900
Austin, TX 78701
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.
03869.119121 2457
EXAMINER
JACKSON JR, JEROME
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2016 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):
trosson@sgbfirm.com
patent@sgbfirm.com
wjenks@sgbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVER HAYDEN and SANDRO FRANCESCO TEDDE
Appeal2014-004503
Application 12/73 7 ,264
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
15-28. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants' invention is directed to a photodetector for X-ray
radiation in which X-ray radiation is converted into electrical charge (Spec.
ii 2).
Claim 15 is illustrative:
15. An organic photodetector on a substrate for direct conversion of
X-ray radiation, comprising
a low electrode on the substrate;
Appeal2014-004503
Application 12/737,264
at least one active organic layer, forming a bulk heterojunction and
incorporating semiconducting nanoparticles in a semiconducting organic
matrix, the semiconducting nanoparticles enabling the direct conversion of
X-ray radiation into electrical charges; and
a top electrode.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 15-20 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Qi et al. (Efficient polymer-nanocrystal quantum-dot
photodetectors, 86 Applied Physics Letters 093103-1-3 (2005)
("Qi")).
2. Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Qi in view of Street et al. (New Materials and processes for flat
panel X-ray detectors, 150 IEE Proc.-Circuits Devices Syst. 250-257
(2003) ("Street")), Wang and Herron (X-Ray Photoconductive
Nanocomposites, 273 SCIENCE 632---634 (1996) ("Wang")) and Tian
et ai. (US 7,923,801 B2, issued Apr. 12, 2011 ("Tian")).
3. Claims 15-20 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Qi in view of Laird et al. (US 2008/0319207 Al,
published Dec. 25, 2008 ("Laird")).
4. Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Qi in view of Street, Wang, Tian, and Laird.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
REJECTIONS (1) AND (2)
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding the teachings of
Qi, Street, Wang, and Tian are located on pages 2-5 of the Answer.
2
Appeal2014-004503
Application 12/737,264
Appellants argue that Qi does not teach a "bulk heterojunction" as
recited in claim 15 (App. Br. 3--4). Appellants contend that a bulk
heterojunction is an accepted term in the scientific community that means an
interpenetrating network of p-type and n-type semiconducting material
which results in a distributed pn-junction throughout the entire layer (App.
Br. 3). Appellants argue that a bulk heterojunction of the claim provides a
component for hole transport and a component that acts as an electron
conductor in the at least one active organic layer (App. Br. 5).
The Examiner finds that bulk heterojunction is merely a junction
between two dissimilar materials (Ans. 6). The Examiner finds that
Appellants' p-type and n-type junctions are not required to be present in a
bulk heterojunction under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term
(Ans. 6-7). The Examiner finds that paragraph 23 of the Specification
recites that a bulk heterojunction requires that "the charge carriers are
separated at the interfaces of the two materials which form within the entire
layer volume" which shows that there is not necessarily a p-n junction in a
bulk heterojunction (Ans. 7).
We understand Appellants to argue that a bulk heterojunction within
the meaning of the claims includes at least one active organic layer that
includes an electron conductor component and a hole transport component in
the active organic layer. Paragraph 23 of the Specification relied upon by
Appellants in their claim mapping in the Appeal Brief supports their
argument that each active layer of a bulk heterojunction includes a hole
transport component and an electron conductor component (App. Br. 2).
The Examiner's analysis of Appellants' paragraph 23 focuses solely on the
3
Appeal2014-004503
Application 12/737,264
second half of the sentence describing a bulk heterojunction. The paragraph
23 sentence in its entirety reads:
The blend of the two components P3HT ... as absorber and/or
hole transport component and PCBM ... as electron acceptor
and/or electron donor acts as a "bulk heterojunction", that is to
say that the charge carriers are separated at the interfaces of the
two materials which form within the entire layer volume.
Spec. i-f 23 (emphasis added).
The Specification discloses that a bulk heterojunction includes a single layer
that is composed of a blend of a hole transport component and an electron
acceptor/ donor component.
In light of this claim construction, we cannot sustain the Examiner's
§ 102 rejection over Qi wherein the Examiner interprets Qi's MEH-
PPV/PbSe layer and the separate PEDOT/PSS layer as bulk heterojunction
(Ans. 2-3, 7). Regarding the§ 103 rejections over Qi alone and Qi in view
of Street; Wang; and Tian; the Examiner does not provide a separate
obviousness analysis that addresses the bulk heterojunction. With regard to
the § 103 rejection over Qi alone, the Examiner uses the obviousness part of
the rejection to address product-by-process claim 17 (Ans. 3). With regard
to the § 103 rejection over Qi in view of Street, Wang, and Tian, the
Examiner uses the additional references to conclude that the layer
thicknesses of the claims would have been obvious (Ans. 5). Therefore, we
cannot sustain the§ 103 rejections over Qi alone or Qi in view of Street,
Wang, and Tian for the same reasons we cannot sustain the§ 102 rejection.
REJECTIONS (3) AND (4)
Appellants argue claims 15 and 26 separately (App. Br. 3---6).
4
Appeal2014-004503
Application 12/737,264
The Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding Qi, Street, Wang,
Tian, and Laird are located on page 6 of the Answer.
With regard to claims 15 and 26, Appellants argue that no evidence
has been provided that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider
modifying the device described in Qi to produce an organic photodetector on
a substrate for direct conversion of X-ray radiation as required by claim 15
(App. Br. 5). Appellants contend that the Examiner has not indicated where
Laird teaches nanoparticles. Id. Appellants argue that Laird's teachings in
combination with Qi fail to teach a bulk heterojunction incorporating
semiconducting nanoparticles in a semiconducting organic matrix, the
semiconducting nanoparticles enabling the direct conversion of X-ray
radiation into electrical charges (App. Br. 6).
Appellants' arguments attack the references individually instead of
addressing the Examiner's rejection. Specifically, the Examiner does not
rely on Laird to teach X-ray converting nanoparticles. Rather, the Examiner
finds that Qi's PbSe nanoparticles are capable of converting X-ray radiation
into electrical energy as these are the same particles used by Appellants
(Ans. 2, 9; Spec. i-f 14). The Examiner relies upon Laird to teach the use of a
PIN bulk heterojunction organic material with or without nanoparticles is
useful for photodetection (Ans. 6). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to use Laird's bulk heterojunction organic layer with Qi's
PbSe nanoparticles sensitive to X-rays in Qi's photodetector because bulk
heterojunction organic materials increase the sensitivity or improve the
detection of the device (Ans. 6). Appellants' arguments do not dispute the
Examiner's reason for combining the teachings of Laird and Qi.
5
Appeal2014-004503
Application 12/737,264
On this record, we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of claims
15-20 and 26-28 over Qi in view of Laird and the § 103 rejection of claims
15-28 over Qi in view of Street, Wang, Tian, and Laird.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
ORDER
AFFIRMED
6