Ex Parte JANG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 26, 2019

14884952 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/884,952 10/16/2015
9629 7590 03/28/2019
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (WA)
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jaeseung JANG
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.
065543-5434 6706
EXAMINER
TRAN,DZUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2019 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):
karen.catalano@morganlewis.com
patents@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAESEUNG JANG, JAEIL SONG, and
DONGHYUK KIM
Appeal2018-005587
Application 14/884,952
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BRIAND. RANGE, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Oct. 16, 2015 ("Spec."); Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2017
("Non-Final"); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 27, 2017 ("Br."); and Examiner's
Answer dated Mar. 14, 2018 ("Ans.").
Appeal2018-005587
Application 14/884,952
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the Examiner's
decision twice rejecting claims 1, 7, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Song (US 2014/0124766 Al, pub. May 8, 2014) and Radu
(US 2007/0228364 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007), and claims 2---6, 9, 21, 3 and 24--
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Song, Radu, and Ma (US
2013/00069044 Al, pub. Mar. 21, 2013). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The invention relates to an organic light emitting display device. Spec.
,r 2. Organic light emitting display devices are said to be advantageous over
other types of panel displays, such as plasma displays or inorganic EL
displays, "in that they can be formed on a flexible transparent substrate such
as plastic, can be driven at relatively low voltage, less power consumption,
and excellent color sensitivity." Id. ,r 4. Organic light emitting display
devices are formed of organic materials stacked between an anode and a
cathode, and operate as follows:
When a voltage is applied to the organic light emitting display
device, holes are injected from the anode, and electrons are
injected from the cathode. The injected charges move to the
opposite electrode according to the energy levels of the organic
layers, and are combined together in a light emitting layer of
organic materials to form excitons. When the excitons fall to
the ground state, they decay into thermal energy or emit light.
2 The Appellant is the Applicant, LG Display Co., Ltd, also identified as the
real party in interest. Br. 2.
3 The Examiner does not include claim 21 in the statement of the rejection,
but addresses this claim in the body of the rejection. Non-Final 8, 14--15.
The Appellant also identifies claim 21 as subject to this ground of rejection.
Br. 4.
2
Appeal2018-005587
Application 14/884,952
Id. ,r 5. At the time of the invention, the use of two types of hosts and one
type of dopant for the light emitting layer was known in the art, the materials
for the two types of host being chosen in consideration of the properties of
each charge of hole-type and electron type. Id. According to the
Specification, a drawback of known devices that utilize two types of hosts
and one type of dopant "is that a light emission area formed between a hole
transport layer and a light emitting layer causes an interface degradation and
an exciton-polaron interaction leads to a lifetime reduction." Id. ,r 6. The
inventive organic light emitting display device is said to be capable of
improving the lifetime of the device. Id. ,r 8.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is
reproduced below.
1. An organic light emitting display device,
compnsmg:
a first light emitting part between an anode and a
cathode, the first light emitting part having a first light emitting
layer; and
a second light emitting part between the first light
emitting part and the cathode, the second light emitting part
having a second light emitting layer and a third light emitting
layer,
wherein the second light emitting layer includes a hole-
type host and a first electron-type host, and the third light
emitting layer includes the first electron-type host and a second
electron-type host, and
wherein an occupied volume ratio of the first electron-
type host in the third light emitting layer is equal to or larger
than an occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host
in the third light emitting layer.
Br. 9, Claims Appendix ( emphasis added).
3
Appeal2018-005587
Application 14/884,952
The Examiner finds Song discloses an organic light emitting display
device as recited in claim 1 with the exception of "an occupied volume ratio
of the first electron-type host in the third light emitting layer is equal to or
larger than an occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host in the
third light emitting layer." Non-Final 3--4 ( quoting claim 1 ).
Radu, like Song, discloses an organic light emitting display device.
See Radu ,r,r 5-8, claims 12, 17, 18. Radu discloses that one of the
component layers of the device is organic/photoactive layer 130. Id. ,r 61. In
one embodiment, photoactive layer 130 comprises an electroluminescent
metal complex and first and second hosts. Id. ,r 73. Radu explicitly discloses
an embodiment in which the ratio of the first host to the second host is 1: 1 to
5:1. Id. Radu discloses that "[t]he choice of materials for each of the
component layers is preferably determined by balancing the goals of
providing a device with high device efficiency with device operational
lifetime considerations, fabrication time and complexity factors and other
considerations appreciated by persons skilled in the art." Id. ,r 69. According
to Radu, "determining optimal components, component configurations, and
compositional identities would be routine to those of ordinary skill of in the
art." Id.
Based on Radu's disclosure, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention would have modified Song's third light
emitting layer such that the first electron-type host was equal to or larger
than an occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host in order to
provide high efficiency and operational lifetime to Song's organic light
emitting display device. Non-Final 4. The Examiner makes similar findings
with respect to independent claim 24. See id. at 8-9. The Examiner relies on
4
Appeal2018-005587
Application 14/884,952
Ma for a teaching of the claim 24 limitation "the first electron-type host and
the second electron-type host have a different LUMO (lowest unoccupied
molecular orbital) level from each other." See id. at 8 (quoting claim 24).
The sole argument advanced by the Appellant is that the Examiner's
motivation for modifying Song's third light emitting layer is not supported
by Radu's disclosure. See generally Br. 4--7. The Appellant argues the
disclosure in paragraph 69 of Radu (i.e., choice of materials and goals)
relates to the explicitly identified layers, and does not pertain to photoactive
layer 130, which is not mentioned in that paragraph. Id. at 6. The Appellant
further argues Radu fails to disclose a relationship between high device
efficiency/operational lifetime and occupied volume ratio of the first and
second electron-type hosts in photoactive layer 130. Id.
The Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's obviousness determination as to independent claims 1 and 24 for
the reasons explained in the Answer. See Ans. 3-5. We agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have read the goals
listed in paragraph 69 of Radu as pertaining to only the explicitly-identified
layers. See id. at 4. Radu mentions "other layers" throughout paragraph 69
and discloses that "choice of materials for each of the component layers" is
determined by balancing the goals of the invention. Radu ,r 69 ( emphasis
added). As found by the Examiner, photoactive layer 130 is one of Radu's
component layers, and Radu explicitly discloses an embodiment in which
the ratio of the first host to the second host in photoactive layer 130 is 1: 1 to
5: 1. Ans. 4. Therefore, the Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding the
ordinary artisan would have understood from Radu that the goals of high
efficiency and operational lifetime could be achieved by a photoactive layer
5
Appeal2018-005587
Application 14/884,952
wherein the occupied volume ratio of the first electron-type host is equal to
or larger than the occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host in
photoactive layer 130. See id.; Radu ,r,r 69, 73.
Because the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness as to claims 1 and 24, we sustain the
rejections of these claims. The Appellant does not present arguments in
support of patentability of any dependent claims. See generally Br. 4--7.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2-7, 9, 20-23, and 25-
29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6