Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

13467968 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/467,968 05/09/2012
23363 7590 09/27/2018
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sung-Soo Lee
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.
68616/Sl437 5670
EXAMINER
NIESZ, JAMIE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2822
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG-SOO LEE, OK-KEUN SONG,
CHAN-YOUNG PARK, and YONG-HAN LEE
Appeal2018-000835
Application 13/467 ,968 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON,
and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 9--14, and 27. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' invention relates generally to an organic light emitting
diode (OLED) display with improved color purity and viewing angle. Spec.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is SAMSUNG
DISPLAY CO., LTD. See App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 15 and 24--26 have been withdrawn from consideration. Final Act.
1.
Appeal2018-000835
Application 13/467 ,968
,r 7. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced from
the Claims Appendix to the principal Brief.
1. An organic light emitting diode (OLED) display
compnsmg:
a substrate;
a first pixel comprising a first pixel electrode of a pixel
electrode, a second pixel comprising a second pixel electrode of
the pixel electrode, and a third pixel comprising a third pixel
electrode of the pixel electrode, the pixel electrode comprising a
reflective electrode on the substrate and a transparent electrode
on the reflective electrode;
a resonance assistance layer on the first pixel electrode;
an organic emission layer comprising:
a first organic emission layer on the resonance
assistance layer and the second pixel electrode;
a second organic emission layer on the first
organic emission layer; and
a third organic emission layer on the third pixel
electrode;
a transflective common electrode on the organic emission
layer;
a color mixture preventing layer on the transflective
common electrode, the color mixture preventing layer being
configured to uniformly absorb overlapped light corresponding
to an overlapped wavelength region of a wavelength region of
first light emitted by the first organic emission layer and a
wavelength region of second light emitted by the second
organic emission layer while uniformly transmitting
non-overlapped light corresponding to wavelength regions
other than the overlapped wavelength region; and
a polarization film on the color mixture preventing layer,
wherein the color mixture preventing layer comprises
only a single distinct layer formed by mixing an adhesive of the
2
Appeal2018-000835
Application 13/467 ,968
polarization film and an absorber for absorbing the overlapped
light while transmitting the non-overlapped light.
Claims Appendix, App. Br. 8.
Appellants (see generally App. Br.) request review of the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1 and 9-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Tamura (US 2010/0156279 Al, June 24,
2010) in view of Okumoto (US 2012/0168787 Al, July 5,
2012) and Izzanni (US 2007/0210703 Al, Sept. 13, 2007).
II. Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Tamura, Okumoto, Izzanni, and Lee '544 (US
2009/0200544 Al, Aug. 13, 2009).
III. Claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of over Tamura, Okumoto,
Izzanni, and Lee '697 (US 2011/0042697 Al, Feb. 24,
2011).
OPINI0N3
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we
determine that Appellants have identified reversible error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1. We add the following:
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in the Final
Office Action. Final Act. 3-9.
3 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1 which we select as
representative of the rejected claims.
3
Appeal2018-000835
Application 13/467 ,968
Appellants first argue the combination of Tamura and Izzanni fails to
disclose or suggest an organic light-emitting diodes comprising "a
transflective common electrode on the organic emission layer" as required
by independent claim 1. App. Br. 4. Appellants further argue Tamura only
discloses the common electrode 270 is either reflective or transparent but not
transflective and there is no suggestion from modifying the elements to
utilize a transflective common electrode. App. Br. 5.
Appellants' first argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
Examiner found Tamura teaches organic light emitting diode (OLED)
display wherein an embodiment discloses the base pixel electrode (193)
comprises a transflective electrode (i-f 83) and wherein the common electrode
(270) comprises a reflective electrode (i-f 77). Final Act 3--4. The Examiner
recognizes this embodiment of Tamura does not disclose the common
electrode (270) comprises a transflective common electrode as required by
the claimed invention. Final Act 4. The Examiner finds Tamura discloses
an alternative embodiment wherein the base pixel electrode and the common
electrode are reversed. The Examiner determined it would have been
obvious to form the organic light-emitting device described by
Tamura's Fig. 5 to include the base pixel electrode (193)
comprising a reflective electrode, the common electrode (270)
comprising a transflective common electrode, and the color
mixture preventing layer (230) on the transflective common
electrode (270) so that light is emitted away from the bottom
substrate (110), in order to form a top emitting OLED display.
Final Act 4--5.
For this argument, we agree with the Examiner. Based on the various
embodiments disclose in Tamura, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have reasonably expected that an OLED display could have been formed
4
Appeal2018-000835
Application 13/467 ,968
comprising a transflective common electrode so that light is emitted away
from the bottom substrate in order to form a top emitting OLED display.
"Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success ... [. A ]11
that is required is a reasonable expectation of success." In re Kubin, 561
F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
903---04 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (internal quotations marks and bracketed alteration
omitted)). Therefore, we do not find Appellants' initial argument persuasive
of reversible error.
Appellants' second argument is that the combination of Tamura and
Izzanni fails to disclose or suggest an organic light-emitting diodes
comprising "the color mixture preventing layer comprises only a single
distinct layer formed by mixing an adhesive of the polarization film and an
absorber" as required by independent claim 1. App. Br. 5.
Appellants argue Izzanni's Figure 4 depicts the planarization layer 12
and the color filter layer 11 C of Izzanni are distinct layers, therefore, Izzanni
fails to disclose a color mixture preventing layer that is "formed by mixing
an adhesive of the polarization film and an absorber," as required by
independent claim 1. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue Izzanni discloses
individually identifiable and separate masses that are not combined or
blended into a single mass as shown by the planarization layer 12 layered on
top of the color filter layer llC. Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner determines that elements 11 C and 12 of Izzanni' s
Figure 4 form a single distinct layer comprising a combination, or mixture,
or multiple components. Final Act. 6. The Examiner further determines that
Izzanni describes a single distinct layer that is the same as Appellants' layer
530. The Examiner specifically states:
5
Appeal2018-000835
Application 13/467 ,968
[Appellant's] Fig. 13 shows element 530 as a single layer,
however, this layer is the "mixed layer" (,Is [0120] and [0121]).
Accordingly, the Appellant's "single distinct layer" is, in fact, a
mixed layer of multiple components. Similarly, elements 11 c
and 12 of Izzanni's Fig. 4 form a single distinct layer
comprising a combination, or mixture, or multiple components.
Therefore, in as much as the Appellant's layer 530 is a "single
distinct layer formed by mixing" components, elements 11 c and
12 of Izzanni also form a "single distinct layer formed by
mixing" components.
Ans. 5---6.
We agree with Appellants that Izzanni fails to teach a "color mixture
preventing layer" that "comprises only a single distinct layer formed by
mixing an adhesive of the polarization film and an absorber," as required by
independent claim 1. App. Br. 6. Izzanni specifically teaches the
planarization layer 12 is utilized for planarizing the unevennesses of the
partial regions 1 OA, 1 OB, and 1 OC of the color filter layer 11 C. Izzanni
,r 50. This description in Izzanni, therefore, discloses two distinct layers,
and thusfails to describe the color mixture preventing layer comprises only a
single distinct layer formed by mixing an adhesive of the polarization film
and an absorber as required by independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the combination of
Tamura and Izzanni fails to disclose or suggest an organic light-emitting
diodes comprising "the color mixture preventing layer comprises only a
single distinct layer formed by mixing an adhesive of the polarization film
and an absorber" as required by independent claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-000835
Application 13/467 ,968
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain appealed rejections I-
III of claims 1, 9-14, and 27.
REVERSED
7