Ex Parte Inoue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

13983687 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/983,687 10/02/2013 Tetsuya Inoue
22850 7590 04/25/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
413937US99PCT 6619
EXAMINER
KERSHNER, DYLAN CLAY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
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 TETSUY A INOUE, MITSUNORI ITO, KUMIKO HIBINO,
KAZUKI NISHIMURA, and KIYOSHI IKEDA
Appeal2018-001423
Application 13/983,687
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 19, 20, and 32--43. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed August 5, 2013; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") dated February 9, 2017; Appellants' Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") dated July 3, 2017; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated
September 22, 2017; and Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") dated
November 22, 2017.
2 Appellants identify Idemitsu Kosan Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-001423
Application 13/983,687
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a biscarbazole derivative for
use in an organic electroluminescence device. Spec. ,r 1. According to
Appellants, use of a biscarbazole derivative as described in the Specification
and recited in the claims results in an organic-electroluminescence device
having high-emission efficiency and long lifetime. Id. ,r 10. Claim I-the
sole independent claim-is illustrative of the subject matter and is
reproduced from the Claims Appendix of Appellants' Appeal Brief below,
with italics added to emphasize the main recitation in dispute:
1. A biscarbazole derivative represented by formula (2), (3),
or (4):
2
Appeal2018-001423
Application 13/983,687
wherein:
-L1-A1 and -LrA2 are different from each other
A2 represents a substituted or unsubstituted aromatic
hydrocarbon group having 6 to 30 ring carbon atoms;
A1 represents a substituted or unsubstituted fluoranthenyl
group, a substituted or unsubstituted benzophenanthrenyl
group, a substituted or unsubstituted benzotriphenylenyl
group, a substituted or unsubstituted dibenzotriphenylenyl
group, a substituted or unsubstituted chrysenyl group, a
substituted or unsubstituted benzochrysenyl group, a substituted
or unsubstituted picenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted
benzo[b ]fluoranthenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted
binaphthyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted
dibenzophenanthrenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted
3
Appeal2018-001423
Application 13/983,687
naphthotriphenylenyl group, or a substituted or unsubstituted
benzofluorenyl group;
each of Y 1 to Y 16 independently represents C(R) and each
of R groups independently represents a hydrogen atom, a
substituent, or a valence bonded to a carbazole skeleton; and
each of L1 and L2 independently represents a single bond
or a substituted or unsubstituted, divalent aromatic hydrocarbon
group having 6 to 30 ring carbon atoms.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 19, 20, 32-37, and 40-43 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Tominaga, 3 Iwakuma, 4
Kwong, 5 and N akatsuka. 6
II. Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Tominaga, Iwakuma, Kwong, Nakatsuka, and
Himeshima. 7
OPINION
With regard to Rejection I, the Examiner finds that Tominaga
discloses a compound having a carbazole skeleton, which is described as
useful as a hole transporting material or host material in an organic
electroluminescence device. Final Act. 7-8. Particularly, the Examiner
relies on a compound depicted in paragraph 36 of Tominaga, the structure of
which is as follows:
3 JP 2003133075 A, published May 9, 2003 ("Tominaga"), as translated.
4 US 2010/0253211 Al, published October 7, 2010 ("Iwakuma").
5 US 2006/0088728 Al, published April 27, 2006 ("Kwong").
6 JP 11-149987, published June 2, 1999 ("Nakatsuka"), as translated.
7 JP 08-003547, published January 9, 1996 ("Himeshima"), as translated.
4
Appeal2018-001423
Application 13/983,687
Id. at 8; Tominaga ,r 36.
Tominaga's disclosed compound is a bis-carbazole having a biphenyl
substituent at each of the two hetero-N atoms. Comparing Tominaga's
compound to claim 1, the Examiner views the biphenyl substituents as the
recited -L1-A1 and -Lz-A2 groups, and correctly acknowledges that
Tominaga does not meet the claim recitation that-L1-A1 and-Lz-A2 are
different. Final Act. 8. However, the Examiner finds that each of Iwakuma
and Kwong teaches that increased conjugation in aromatic compounds
enhances stability, but lowers triplet energy, of the compound. Id. at 8-9;
Ans. 10-11. The Examiner further finds that I wakuma and N akatsuka
disclose fluoranthene substituents on carbazole groups in connection with
materials for electro luminescence devices. Final Act. 9. Based on these
findings, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
modify Tominaga's compound by substituting a fluoranthene for one of the
biphenyl substituents to enhance stability of the compound, but not
substituting for the other biphenyl substituent so that "triplet energy of the
resulting compound can be balanced." Id. at 10.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that none of the secondary references
relates to biscarbazole derivatives. App. Br. 9-10. Appellants' further argue
5
Appeal2018-001423
Application 13/983,687
that neither Kwong nor I wakmna provides a teaching as to how a balance
between too much and too little conjugation could be achieved in
biscarbazoles. Id.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Kwong discloses
arylcarbozoles in which carbazole substituents are separated by a specified
aryl core. According to Kwong, a balance of stability and triplet energy is
achieved by selection of a suitable degree of conjugation of the aryl core.
Kwong ,r 62 ("Where the core of arylcarbozoles have a higher degree of n-
conjugation, it is believed to stabilize the reduced ( anion radical) state,
resulting in more stable electron transport."); ,r 64 ( explaining that
increasing n-conjugation of the aryl core of arylcarbozoles also decreases the
band gap of the compound and, consequently, lowers the triplet energy
level). Iwakuma's teaching of the effects of increased conjugation likewise
relates to the aryl core of a compound, specifically, a naphthalene-containing
skeleton core having substituent groups at either end. See Iwakuma ,r 98
(identifying the naphthalene-containing skeleton of the disclosed
compound); ,r 108 ( explaining that increasing the number of ring atoms in
the skeleton enhances stability but decreases band gap).
The Examiner does not point to evidence to support a finding that the
conjugation effects taught by Kwong or Iwakuma in connection with an aryl
core structure would have been viewed by one of ordinary skill as being
applicable to substituent groups separated by a biscarbazole core, such as
that of T ominaga. The Examiner's comment that Kwong' s teaching
"appears to be general to aromatic hydrocarbon groups" is not supported by
citation to evidence or sound technical reasoning. Ans. 10-11. As such, we
are persuaded that the Examiner's determination that it would have been
6
Appeal2018-001423
Application 13/983,687
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace only one of Tominaga's
biphenyl-substituent groups with fluoranthene, for the purpose of balancing
stability and triplet energy through increased conjugation of the substituent
group, is not supported by a preponderance of evidence. For that reason, we
do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejection II is premised on the same unsubstantiated conclusion
drawn from Kwong and Iwakuma. Final Act. 12. Accordingly, Rejection II
also is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections are reversed.
REVERSED
7