Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2022

2021001218 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2022)

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. 15/258,544 09/07/2016 Sangmo KIM YPL1677US 2457 23413 7590 03/09/2022 CANTOR COLBURN LLP 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER BOHATY, ANDREW K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1759 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2022 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SANGMO KIM, HYUNJUNG KIM, SOONOK JEON, YEONSOOK CHUNG, MIYOUNG CHAE, DALHO HUH, EUNSUK KWON, JONGSOO KIM, and MYUNGSUN SIM Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6 and 8-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG SDI CO., LTD. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter on appeal is directed to condensed cyclic compounds and devices containing such compounds, such as an organic light-emitting device (OLED). Appeal Br. 13-41 (Claims App); Spec. ¶ 1. The composition recited in independent claim 1 requires, inter alia, a condensed cyclic compound represented by Formula 1: Ar1-L1-L2-Ar2. Claim 1 recites Formulas 2 to 5: Formula 2 Formula 3 Formula 4 Formula 5. Id. at 13. Regarding the Ar groups of Formula 1, claim 1 requires, inter alia, that Ar1 is a group represented by Formula 2 and Ar2 is a group represented by Formula 3. Id. With respect to the L groups of Formula 1, claim 1 requires, inter alia, that: i) L1 is a group represented by Formula 4 and L2 is a group represented by Formula 5; or ii) L1 is a group represented by Formula 5 and L2 is a group represented by Formula 4. Id. at 14. Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 3 Independent claim 10 is similar to claim 1 and recites, inter alia, a condensed cyclic compound having Ar and R groups represented by Formula 1-1: Id. at 27. Independent claim 14 similarly requires specific groups attached to a biphenyl for Compounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18-20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32-68, and 73-76. Id. at 34-39. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-6 and 8-20 over Kim,2 Suzuri,3 and Sapochak.4 Final Act. 3-5. The Examiner undisputedly finds that Kim teaches the use of cyclic compounds in the electron blocking layer of an OLED. Id. at 3-4. The Examiner finds Kim’s cyclic compounds are similar to the compounds recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 14, but are different with respect to “the position where the heteroaryl groups are attached to the phenylene 2 KR 1020110132721A, published December 9, 2011 (we rely on the English machine translation). 3 US 2008/0303415 A1, published December 11, 2008. 4 US 2010/0213443 A1, published August 26, 2010. Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 4 groups.” Id. at 4. To address this difference between Kim and claims 1, 10, and 14, the Examiner turns to Suzuri and Sapochak. Id. The Examiner undisputedly finds Suzuri teaches that compounds used in an OLED’s electron blocking layer must have a higher triplet energy than the underlying light emitting layer’s triplet energy level. Id. The Examiner relies on Sapochak for teaching that: (i) one can increase an OLED material’s triplet energy by decreasing the conjugation length of a compound’s aromatic groups and, conversely, (ii) extending the compound’s conjugation length would have led to a decrease in triplet energy. Id. According to the Examiner--and undisputed by Appellant--Kim does not limit how the heteroaryl groups are attached to phenylene groups. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious “to modify the compounds of Kim, so the heteroaryl groups . . . are moved on the biphenylene linking group” to decrease the compound’s conjugation length and confer a higher triplet energy to the compound. Id. at 5. In so doing, the Examiner determines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that increasing the compound’s triplet energy would have made “the compounds a better electron blocking material or host for blue phosphorescent dopant.” Id.; see Sapochak ¶ 10 (disclosing that achieving “a high triplet exciton energy without sacrificing the aromatic backbone of the molecule. . . makes these materials excellent hosts for high efficiency blue phosphors, as well as longer wavelength OLEDs.”). Appellant’s arguments focus on Sapochak’s Type 3 configuration in which an ambipolar phosphine oxide host material (ETG) forms a bridge between two hole transporting groups (HTG). Appeal Br. 7. Appellant maps Sapochak’s ETG bridge unit to the combined L1 and L2 groups of Formulas 4 and 5 (claim 1) and Sapochak’s HTG units to the carbazoles of Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 5 Formulas 2 and 3 (claim 1). Appeal Br. 8; see also id. at 8-9 (similarly mapping Sapochak’s Type 3 ETG unit and HTG units to the combined L1 and L2 groups and carbazole groups, respectively, recited in claims 10 and 14). Appellant argues that Sapochak’s two phosphoryl groups are required in Type 3 ambipolar host materials “as points of electronic saturation, preventing conjugation of electrons throughout the larger molecule and isolating the electronic functionality of the ETG and HTG, respectively.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Sapochak ¶ 13). Appellant contends that Sapochak’s phosphoryl groups between ETG and HTG units improves “the charge balance and overall efficiency of the OLED.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Sapochak ¶ 13). Appellant thus argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to exclude Sapochak’s novel phosphoryl linker when modifying Kim and to replace the p-biphenylene linker with the combination of (1) one o- phenylene linker of Formula 4 and one m-phenylene linker of Formula 5 to arrive at the compounds of Formula 1 of Claim 1 and Compounds 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18-20, 23[, ]24, 26, 28, 30, and 32-68 of Claim 14; and (2) two o-phenylene linkers of Formula 4 to arrive at the compounds of Formula 1-1 of Claim 10 and Compounds 73-76 of Claim 14. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Kim’s p-biphenylene linker changes Sapochak’s principle of operation, thereby rendering the Type 3 ambipolar host materials unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Id. Appellant also alleges that Sapochak’s paragraph 10 “teaches that the triplet energy can be decreased without extending (or without increasing) the conjugation length,” but fails to teach decreasing the conjugation length to increase the triplet energy. Id. at 10. Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 6 OPINION We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019); cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Upon consideration of Appellant’s arguments in light of the evidence in the appeal record, we determine that Appellant has identified no such error. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection for the reasons expressed by the Examiner. Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 6-9. We add the following for emphasis. We first observe that Appellant’s arguments are improperly premised on the bodily incorporation of Sapochak’s phosphoryl groups into Kim’s cyclic compounds. Appeal Br. 5-9. It is well established, however, that the obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”). Thus, to the extent Appellant is arguing that the skilled artisan would not have combined Kim, Suzuri, and Sapochak without including the secondary reference’s phosphoryl groups, that Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 7 argument fails as it is non-responsive to the rejection actually made. Final Act. 3-5. Moreover, Appellant’s argument that Sapochak fails to teach that decreasing the conjugation length increases the triplet energy is unavailing because this argument does not address the full scope of what Sapochak suggests. Sapochak explicitly discloses that [a]n alternative route to design host molecules for efficient blue phosphorescence at low voltages is to use a point of saturation, such as a phosphoryl group, to link small, high triplet energy molecular fragments into a larger molecule without extending the conjugation length of the fragments and thereby lowering the triplet exciton energy of the larger molecule. Sapochak ¶ 10 (emphasis added).5 Thus, as found by the Examiner, Sapochak reasonably implies that an inverse relationship exists between conjugation length and triple exciton energy levels. Ans. 8-9. Appellant has not presented any evidence that rebuts the Examiner’s finding that decreasing the conjugation length of a cyclic compound increases that cyclic compound’s triplet energy. “It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have viewed Sapochak’s disclosure as narrowly as Appellant urges. As mentioned supra, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Kim does not limit how the heteroaryl groups are attached to phenylene groups. Final Act. 4; Ans. 8. It is further undisputed that Suzuri teaches that compounds used in an OLED’s electron blocking layer must 5 Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, we note Sapochak teaches that the use of phosphoryl groups as a point of saturation is optional. Sapochak ¶ 10. Appeal 2021-001218 Application 15/258,544 8 have a higher triplet energy than the underlying light emitting layer’s triplet energy level. Ans. 8. Nor does Appellant dispute the Examiner’s finding that it is “well-known in the art that the placement of groups on aromatic rings changes the conjugation length of a compound and the electron communication through a compound.” Id. at 7. We therefore agree with the Examiner that the skilled artisan, armed with the teachings of Kim, Suzuri, and Sapochak, would have been motivated by Sapochak’s disclosure to replace the p-biphenylene linkers in Kim’s cyclic compounds, which are used as an OLED’s electron blocking layer, with linkers that decrease the conjugation lengths of these compounds to increase their triplet energy level. Ans. 6-9. In sum, because Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the rejection, we sustain it. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8-20 103 Kim, Suzuri, Sapochak 1-6, 8-20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED