Ex Parte Spreitzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

13508263 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/508,263 05/04/2012
123223 7590 10/25/2018
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (WM)
222 Delaware A venue, Ste. 1410
Wilmington, DE 19801-1621
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hubert Spreitzer
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.
074025-0266-US (287063) 7435
EXAMINER
KERSHNER, DYLAN CLAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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):
DBRIPDocket@dbr.com
IPDocketWM@dbr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUBERT SPREITZER,
JOCHEN SCHWAIGER, HENRICH BECKER,
FRANK VOGES, and HOLGER HEIL
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from an Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 16, 21-26, 29, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kubota 1 in view of Stoessel et al. 2 and Kim et al. 3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Independent claim 16 recites an organic electroluminescent device,
comprising at least one layer, and which comprises at least one compound of
formula (I -1 a) 4
1 US 2007/0273272 Al, published November 29, 2007 ("Kubota").
2 WO 2008/145239 A2, published December 4, 2008 ("Stoessel"). The Examiner
relies on US 2010/0187505 Al, published July 29, 2010, as the English language
equivalent of the WO publication. The Appellants do not object. Therefore, in this
Decision on Appeal, we also rely on US 2010/0187505 Al, as the English
language equivalent of WO 2008/145239 A2.
3 US 2007 /0087222 Al, published April 19, 2007 ("Kim").
4 In response to a Restriction/Election Requirement by the Examiner (Office
Action dated July 15, 2015), the Appellants elected "species 4 [4-(10-
phenylanthracen-9-yl}-phenyl]-benzo[a]anthracene (H2), found on page 111, 123
2
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
and at least one compound selected from the group consisting of
indenofluorenamines or indenofluorenediamines, benzoindenofluorenamines,
benzoindenofluorenediamines, dibenzoindenofluorenamines,
dibenzoindenofluorenediamines, and compounds according to formula (II)
fon:nnla on
wherein Z, Y, X, n, R, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and Ar are defined in claim 16. App. Br.
11-14.
The compounds of formula (1) 5 are said to be preferably used in a blue-
and/or green-emitting layer. Spec. 77, 11. 33-34. In one embodiment, the
Appellants disclose that the compounds of formula (I) are employed as host
material for dopants, in particular for blue- or green-fluorescent dopants. Spec. 78,
11. 10-14.
of the instant specification" (Response dated August 17, 2015, at 8). The formula
of compound H2 is shown below.
H2
Spec. 123.
5 The compounds of formula (I-1 a), recited in claim 16, are a species of the
compounds of formula (I).
3
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
The Appellants disclose that "[ o ]n use in organic electroluminescent
devices, the compounds according to the invention preferably have high efficiency
and a long lifetime, making the organic electroluminescent devices according to
the invention very highly suitable for use in high-quality and long-lived displays."
Spec. 108, 11. 1--4. The Appellants also disclose that "the compounds according to
the invention have high thermal stability and a high glass-transition temperature
and can be sublimed without decomposition." Spec. 108, 11. 4---6.
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Kubota discloses an organic electroluminescent (EL)
device comprising a benzanthracene derivative as a host material in the light
emitting layer of the device. Final Act. 6. 6 The Examiner finds that the disclosed
benzanthracene derivatives are represented by general formulae (1) through (4) and
benzanthracene derivatives having the structure of general formula (1) are
exemplified by compounds BAN-I through BAN-36. Final Act. 6; Kubota ,r 52.
The formula of compound BAN-14 is shown below.
Kubota 7; Final Act. 6.
6 Final Office Action dated April 21, 2016.
4
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
Organic EL devices comprising the benzanthracene derivatives disclosed in
Kubota, which have hydrogen at the 12-position, are said to provide efficient light
emission, have a long life, and exhibit an excellent chromaticity. Kubota ,r 18.
The Examiner finds Kubota does not teach that the benzanthracene moiety in
Compound BAN-14 is bonded to the phenylene group at the 4-position of the
benzanthracene 7 as in Appellants' compound H2. Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 9. 8
The Examiner finds Stoessel discloses benzanthracene derivatives that are
used as a host in an organic EL device. Final Act. 7. The disclosed
benzanthracene derivatives are encompassed by the structures of formulae (1)
through (33). See Stoessel ,r,r 9--35. The Examiner finds that compounds having
the structure of formula (1) are exemplified by compounds (1) to (338). Final Act.
7; see also Stoessel ,r 42. The formula of compound ( 6), wherein the
benzanthracene moiety is substituted at the 4-position of the benzanthracene by an
aromatic group, is shown below. 9 Stoessel 8; Final Act. 7.
Stoessel discloses:
Surprisingly, it has been found that benz[ a ]anthracene
derivatives which are substituted in at least one of positions 2, 3, 4, 5
or 6 by an aromatic or heteroaromatic group ... are very highly
suitable for use in organic electroluminescent devices. These
compounds enable an increase in the efficiency and especially the
lifetime of the organic electronic device compared with materials in
7 The 4-position of benzanthracene is illustrated on page 4 of the Appellants'
Specification.
8 Examiner's Answer dated January 13, 2017.
9 The 4-position of benzanthracene is illustrated in paragraph 8 of Stoessel.
5
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
accordance with the prior art. This applies, in particular, to blue-
fluorescent devices. Furthermore, these compounds have high
thermal stability. In general, these materials are very highly suitable
for use in organic electronic devices since they have a high glass-
transition temperature.
Stoessel ,r 6; see also Final Act. 7 ( citing Stoessel ,r 6).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify "Kubota's compound BAN-14 to have the bond between
the benzanthracene moiety and the phenylene group at the 4-position of the
benzanthracene moiety" based on the teachings in Stoessel. Final Act. 7. The
Examiner finds that the motivation for the proposed modification is to provide
Kubota's compound BAN-14 with high thermal stability and increase the
efficiency and lifetime of organic EL devices comprising compound BAN-14, as
taught by Stoessel. Final Act. 7.
As for the compounds according to formula (II) recited in claim 16, the
Examiner finds that Kubota discloses that the light emitting layer may include an
arylamine compound. Ans. 14; see also Kubota ,r 55. The Examiner, however,
finds that Kubota does not teach an arylamine compound within the scope of
formula (II) as a light-emitting dopant. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner finds Kim discloses compounds as light-emitting dopants in
the light-emitting layer of an organic EL device. Final Act. 8. Kim discloses that
the compounds are represented by Formula 1 and include compounds G-01
6
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
through G-156. Kim ,r,r 20, 27; see also Final Act. 8 (citing Kim ,r 27). The
formula of compound G-68 is shown below. Kim 12; Final Act. 8.
The Examiner finds that the dopants disclosed in Kim provide an organic EL
device having high color purity and a long lifetime. Final Act. 8; Kim ,r 16. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to use Kim's compound G-68 in the light emitting layer of Kubota's organic EL
device to provide Kubota's device with high color purity and a long lifetime, as
taught by Kim. Final Act. 8.
As for the combination of Kubota and Stoessel, the Appellants argue:
Assuming arguendo that the skilled artisan would desire to create
"devices with increased efficient [sic] and increased lifetime," the
cited references fail to provide any teaching or suggestion of a
technical benefit attributable to Kubota's BAN-14 (along with
Stoessel) that would motivate the skilled artisan to select it over any
other possible compound and substitution position. Notably, Stoessel
discloses substitution in one of positions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the
benzanthracene. Stoessel at [0006]. Appellants submit that there is
noting [sic] ( other than Appellants' instant application) that would
lead the skilled artisan to select the 4- position over the others.
App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).
7
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
In response, the Examiner finds that certain examples in Stoessel show that
Stoessel's compound 6 has the longest lifetime and highest efficiency compared to
other compounds in Stoessel. Ans. 11. The Appellants, however, dispute the
Examiner's findings and argue that results reported in Stoessel "show that position
5 is better than the 4-position." Reply Br. 2. 10
The Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. Stoessel
discloses that benzanthracene derivatives substituted in at least one of positions 2,
3, 4, 5, or 6 by an aromatic or heteroaromatic group increase the efficiency and
lifetime of an organic electronic device. Stoessel ,r 6. To the extent that certain
examples in Stoessel show 5-substituted benzanthracenes perform better than 4-
substituted benzanthracenes, the Appellants do not direct us to any evidence
establishing that, contrary to the disclosure of Stoessel, the efficiency and lifetime
of an organic electronic device is not also increased by the 4-substituted
benzanthracenes. 11
Based on the evidence of record, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art,
interested in increasing the efficiency and lifetime of Kubota's organic EL device,
would have been motivated to bond Kubota's phenylene group at any one of
positions 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 of the benzanthracene moiety, which includes claimed
position 4, to increase the efficiency and lifetime of Kubota's organic EL device.
See Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
10 Reply Brief dated March 6, 2017.
11 In the Reply Brief, the Appellants direct our attention to Stoessel Examples 81,
82, 84, and 85. Reply Br. 3. Examples 81 and 82 (i.e., a 4-substituted
benzanthracene) exhibit a maximum efficiency of 7.4 cd/ A and 7 .3 cd/ A,
respectively, and a lifetime of 280 (h) at 6000 cd/m2 and 340 (h) at 6000 cd/m2,
respectively. Examples 84 and 85 (i.e., a 5-substituted benzanthracene) exhibit a
maximum efficiency of 7 .5 cd/ A and 7 .6 cd/ A, respectively, and a lifetime of 310
(h) at 6000 cd/m2 and 400 (h) at 6000 cd/m2, respectively. Stoessel 93 (Table 2).
8
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
( disclosure of a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular
formulation less obvious, especially where the claimed composition is used for the
identical purpose taught by the prior art).
As for the combination of Kubota and Kim, the Appellants present a similar
argument:
Assuming arguendo that the skilled artisan would desire to "provide
high color purity and long life time," the cited references fail to
provide any teaching or suggestion of a technical benefit attributable
to the use of G-68 over any of the other 155 compounds. While some
of the Examples utilize G-68, other compounds have an even longer
life time, and are, based on the above rationale, are more likely to be
selected.
App. Br. 9 ( emphasis added).
Again, the Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. There
is no dispute on this record that, at the time of the Appellants' invention, light-
emitting dopants identified as compounds G-01 through G-156 in Kim were known
to provide an organic EL device having high color purity and a long lifetime. See
Kim ,r 16. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, interested in providing Kubota's
organic EL device with high color purity and a long lifetime, would have been
motivated to modify the light emitting layer of Kubota's organic EL device with
any one a/Kim's compounds G-01 through G-156, which includes a compound
within the scope of Appellants' claim 16 (i.e., compound G-68). Merck, 874 F.2d
at 807. To the extent that some of Kim's compounds may have "an even longer
life time" 12 than compound G-68, the evidence of record establishes that
compound G-68, nonetheless, provides an organic EL device having high color
purity and a long lifetime. Kim ,r 16.
12 App. Br. 9.
9
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
Finally, in an attempt to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness, the
Appellants argue that the claimed device "show[ s] superior lifetimes and
efficiencies." App. Br. 9. The Appellants argue that "this is demonstrated by the
examples according to the invention, having combinations of compounds H2 or H3
with compounds SEBl or SEGI." App. Br. 9--10 (citing Spec. 118; Tables 1, 2).
The Appellants, however, do not direct us to any evidence comparing those
combinations of compounds with the prior art, let alone the closest prior art. 13 See
Ans. 17 (finding that the closest prior art is Kubota).
The Appellants also do not direct our attention to any evidence
demonstrating that the alleged "superior lifetimes and efficiencies" 14 would have
been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Appellants'
invention. See In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973) (in order for a
showing of "unexpected results" to be probative evidence of non-obviousness, the
applicant must establish that the difference between the results obtained through
the claimed invention and those of the prior art would not have been expected by
one skilled in the art at the time of invention). Moreover, as explained by the
Examiner, the Appellants' showing is not commensurate with the scope of the
claims. 15 See Ans. 17-19.
On balance, the weight of the evidence weighs in favor of the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 16, 21-
26, 29, 35, and 36 is sustained.
13 See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("an applicant relying
on comparative tests to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness must compare his
claimed invention to the closest prior art").
14 App. Br. 9.
15 See In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791,792 (CCPA 1971) ("objective evidence ofnon-
obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is
offered to support").
10
Appeal2017-006171
Application 13/508,263
C. 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.I36(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
11