Ex Parte Kaiser et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 19, 2017

13147186 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 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. 13/147,186 07/29/2011 Joachim Kaiser 074025-0270-US (287066) 1581 123223 7590 01/23/2017 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM) 222 Delaware Avenue, Ste. 1410 Wilmington, DE 19801-1621 EXAMINER GARRETT, DAWN L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/23/2017 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): IPDocketWM @ dbr.com penelope. mongelluzzo @ dbr. com DB RIPDocket @ 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 Appeal 2015-007823 Application 13/147,186 Technology Center 1700 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2015-007823 Application 13/147,186 Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision2 finally rejecting claims 1—5, 8—14, and 16. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The invention relates to white-emitting organic electroluminescent devices. Specification filed July 29, 2011 (“Spec.”) 1:2—3. Independent claim 1 is representative of the appealed claims, and is reproduced in part below (see Br. 14— 15, Claims Appendix (wherein Appellants provide a complete version of claim 1, including the omitted recitations relating to Ar, Ar2, and Ar3)): 1. An organic electroluminescent device comprising, in sequence: an anode; a yellow-, orange- or red-emitting layer; a blue-emitting layer; a first electron-transport layer adjacent to the blue-emitting layer; a second electron-transport layer that is adjacent to an optional electron- injection layer or to a cathode; the optional electron-injection layer; and the cathode, wherein the first electron-transport layer comprises an aromatic ketone of formula (1) formula (1) or the first electron-transport layer comprises a triazine derivative of the formula (2) or (3): 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Merck Patent GmbH. Appeal Brief filed Mar. 11, 2015 (“Br.”), 2. 2 Final Office Action mailed Oct. 14, 2014 (“Final Act.”). 2 Appeal 2015-007823 Application 13/147,186 Ar Nw^NY Ar2 2 fonnula (2) formula (3) The claims stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:3 1. claims 1—3, 5, 8—11, 13, and 14 as unpatentable over Gerhard et al. (US 2006/0175958 Al, pub. Aug. 10, 2006 (“Gerhard”)) in view of Vestweber et al. (US 2007/0134510 Al, pub. June 14, 2007 (“Vestweber”)); 2. claims 1—5, 8—11, 13, 14, and 16 as unpatentable over Iijima et al. (US 2006/0158104 Al, pub. July 20, 2006 (“Iijima”)) in view of Vestweber; and 3. claim 12 as unpatentable over (a) Gerhard or Iijima, in view of (b) Vestweber and (c) Deaton et al. (US 2008/0284318 Al, pub. Nov. 20, 2008 (“Deaton”)). We have considered Appellants’ arguments in support of nonobviousness of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as the separate arguments advanced in support of patentability of dependent claim 12. See generally Br. 6—12. We have also considered the examples in the Specification relied on by Appellants as evidence of unexpected results. See id. at 9—10 (citing Spec. 54:3—12 (Table 1), Exs. la, lb, lc, and 4). We determine, however, that the totality of the evidence on this appeal record favors the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness for the reasons 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the final rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. Advisory Action mailed December 17, 2014; Examiner’s Answer mailed June 30, 2015 (“Ans.”), 8— 9. 3 Appeal 2015-007823 Application 13/147,186 well stated in the Final Office Action and the Answer. See Final Act. 4—12; Ans. 2—16. As explained in detail by the Examiner, Appellants’ arguments fail to address (and, therefore, do not identify error in) the facts and reasons relied on by the Examiner in rejecting the claims. See Ans. 11—16. As further explained by the Examiner (see id. at 9—12), the examples relied on by Appellants as evidence of unexpected results do not provide an adequate basis to support a conclusion that other embodiments falling within the scope of the claims will behave in the same manner and, therefore, the evidence is not persuasive of nonobviousness because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning, as set forth in the Final Office Action and the Answer, in sustaining the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—3, 5, and 8—14 over the combination of Gerhard and Vestweber, and claims 1—5, 8—14, and 16 over the combination of Iijima and Vestweber. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 4