Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 6, 2018

14270654 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/270,654 05/06/2014
26384 7590 07/06/2018
NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
AS SOCIA TE COUNSEL (PA TENTS)
CODE 1008.2
4555 OVERLOOK A VENUE, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20375-5320
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
WoohongKim
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.
096605-US2 6574
EXAMINER
GONZALEZ, HIRAM E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2848
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WOOHONG KIM, GARY P. KUSHTO, and
ZAKY AH. KAP AFI
Appeal2017-009379
Application 14/270,654
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claim
28. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Application No. 14/270,654, titled Electrically Conductive Polymers
("Spec."). The real party in interest is identified as The Government of the
United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of the Navy.
Appeal Brief filed August 2, 2016 ("App. Br."), 2.
Appeal2017-009379
Application 14/270,654
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 28, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
28. A method of forming an electronic device, comprising:
forming a first electrode, wherein the first electrode
comprises a conductive polymer electrode defining first and
second surfaces and having an electrical conductivity gradient
between the first and second surfaces, wherein forming the first
electrode comprises depositing a solution comprising a
conductive polymer and a dopant to form a first layer, and
thereafter irradiating the first layer to produce a conductivity
gradient in the first layer; and
forming at least one organic material layer intermediate
the first electrode and a second electrode.
App. Br. 5 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Parker US 2005/0184306 Al Aug. 25, 2005
Snaith, et. al, Morphological and electronic consequences of
modifications to the polymer anode 'PEDOT:PSS,' Polymer 46, 2573-
2578, January 2005 ("Snaith").
2
Appeal2017-009379
Application 14/270,654
REJECTION
Claim 28 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Parker in view of Snaith. Final Act. 3. 3
OPINION
In rejecting claim 28 over Parker and Snaith, the Examiner
acknowledges that Parker does not teach "irradiating [a] first layer to
produce a conductivity gradient in the first layer" as recited in claim 28 and
cites Snaith for the teaching. Final Act. 3. Citing Snaith's teaching of "a
method of producing a gradient hole injection materiel [sic] using
PEDOT:PSS and a dopant having improved hole injection by creating a
gradient of PSS concentration with a PSS-rich top surface," the Examiner
finds that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious "to have a PSS
concentration gradient, as taught by Snaith []to improve the hole injection
properties of the anode material." Id. at 3--4.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner finds that Parker's
description that a low conductivity layer which "is usually most
conveniently deposited ... by spin casting or like technique" which "can be
heat-treated" teaches "irradiating [a] first layer to produce a conductivity
gradient in the first layer" as recited in claim 28. Parker i-f 162 (cited in Ans.
2 ). Reasoning that "heat treating is a form of irradiation", the Examiner
finds that Snaith's description that "[t]he polymer films were heated to 80C.
2 Claim 29 has been canceled. App. Br. 2.
3 We refer to the Final Action mailed December 2, 2015 ("Final Act.") and
the Examiner's Answer mailed January 13, 2017 ("Ans."). No Reply Brief
has been submitted.
3
Appeal2017-009379
Application 14/270,654
.. to reduce the rate of solvent evaporation" also teaches the limitation at
issue. Ans. 2; Snaith at 2574 (cited in Ans. 2, 3).
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred because neither
reference teaches or suggests "irradiating [a] first layer to produce a
conductivity gradient in the first layer" as recited in claim 28. App. Br. 3
(citing Spec. i-fi-1 64, 77 for embodiments of the irradiating step of the claim).
Because the record before us does not sufficiently show that heating a
polymer layer "to reduce the rate of solvent evaporation" (Snaith at 2574
(cited in Ans. 2, 3)) or heat treating a polymer (Parker i-f 162 (cited in Ans.
2)) teaches or suggests "irradiating [a] first layer to produce a conductivity
gradient in the first layer" as recited in claim 28, we reverse the rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claim 28 is reversed.
REVERSED
4