Ex Parte Lee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201512269228 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/269,228 11/12/2008 Kwang Yeon Lee 12580-5266 9858 757 7590 04/30/2015 BGL P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER BOHATY, ANDREW K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1786 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2015 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 KWANG YEON LEE, SUNG HOON CHOI, HEE SEOK YANG, and KYU IL HAN 1 ____________ Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1 and 3 over Kido et al. (US 6,396,209 B1, issued May 28, 2002) (hereinafter “Kido”) in view of Bae et al. (US 2007/0018155 A1, published Jan. 25, 2007) (hereinafter “Bae”) and over Kido et al. (US 2005/0084713 A1, published Apr. 21, 2005) (hereinafter “Kido 2005”) in view of Bae; and claim 6 over Kuribayashi et al. (US 6,175,345 B1, issued Jan. 16, 2001) (hereinafter “Kuribayashi”) in view of Kido and Bae and over Kuribayashi in view of Kido 2005 and Bae. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is LG Display, Co. Br. 2. Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to organic light emitting diodes including an electron transfer layer formed by mixing Liq and an organic substance. Spec. Abstract. Independent claim 1 is directed to an organic light emitting diode. Independent claim 6 is directed to a display device including an organic light emitting diode. Claim 1 reproduced from the Claim Appendix is illustrative of the claimed invention: 1. An organic light emitting diode comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and an organic light emitting unit, between the first and second electrodes, including an electron transfer layer, which is formed of a mixture of an organic substance and Liq, wherein the organic substance includes an imidazole derivative, wherein the organic substance is a compound indicated by Chemical Formula 1, [Chemical Formula 3] where, in the Chemical Formula 1, R1-R6 are independently or simultaneously selected from a group consisting of hydrogen, a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted alkoxy group, a substituted Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 3 or unsubstituted alkenyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl amine group, a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group, a substituted or unsubstituted aliphatic cyclic group, a substituted or unsubstituted silicon group, a substituted or unsubstituted boron group, an amino group, a nitrile group, a nitro group, a halogen group, an amide group, and an ester group, R7 is selected from a group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group, a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group, a substituted or unsubstituted aliphatic cyclic group, and a substituted or unsubstituted silicon group, and R8 is selected from a group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, a substituted or unsubstituted aryl group, and a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic group, and wherein the mixing ratio of the Liq and the compound of the Chemical Formula 1 is 1:1 such that the electron transfer layer has a conduction band of 5.58eV and a valance band of 3.153eV to obtain a lowest driving voltage. Br. Claim Appendix 23–24. 2 Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1 and 3 as a group on the basis of claim 1, and rely on the same arguments as to the patentability of claim 6. 3 Br. 10–29. We decide this appeal based on claim 1. 2 We note the structure as reproduced from Appellants’ Claim Appendix lacks the superscript “1” on R 1 and is mislabeled as Formula 3 rather than Formula 1. Br. Claim Appendix 23. Indeed, claim 1 as amended October 11, 2011, includes the correct structure with R 1 and the correct recitation of “[Chemical Formula 1]” in the claim. 3 Rather than reiterate all arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Final Office Action (mailed December 6, 2011), the Appeal Brief (filed July 20, 2012), and the Answer (mailed August 9, 2012). Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 4 OPINION Having reviewed the Examiner’s decision in light of arguments advanced by Appellants in the Appeal Brief, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred reversibly in concluding claims 1, 3, and 6 are unpatentable for obviousness over the cited prior art. We refer to the Final Office Action and Examiner’s Answer for a complete statement of the rejections, which we adopt. Final Action 2–12; Ans. 2–15. We add the following for emphasis and explanation. We begin our analysis by construing claim 1. We then compare the construed claim to the cited prior art. “[N]ot unlike a determination of infringement, a determination of anticipation, as well as obviousness, involves two steps. First is construing the claim, . . . followed by, in the case of anticipation or obviousness, a comparison of the construed claim to the prior art.” Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In construing claims, “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id. Looking to the Specification, including Fig. 3 and paragraph 20 cited by Appellants as disclosing that the electron transfer layer is a distinct layer disposed between the light emitting layer and the electron transfer layer (see, e.g., Br. 11, 13–14, 20), we conclude that the claims do not require an electron injection layer. Even if the Specification could be fairly read to Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 5 teach that an electron injection layer was needed for function, there is no basis to read this limitation into the claim. See, e.g., Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he claims need not recite every component necessary to enable operation of a working device.”). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusions that claim 1 requires an anode, a cathode, and organic layers between the anode and cathode (see, e.g., Ans. 3) and “the presence of a light emitting layer and an electron transfer layer” where the electron transfer layer is “between the light emitting layer and the cathode” (id. at 13). Further, regarding the composition of the “electron transfer layer,” we find the plain meaning of claim 1 to be that the “electron transfer layer” is formed of a “mixture of an organic substance [according to the recited formula] and Liq.” Claim 1. We now turn to the Examiner’s rejections and Appellants’ arguments. Rejection of claims 1 and 3 over Kido in view of Bae The Examiner finds Kido teaches a light emitting diode comprising an anode and cathode with organic layers, including a luminescent layer and a mixed layer, between the electrodes. Ans. 3 (citing Kido Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 56–64). The Examiner finds the mixed layer includes an organic electron transporting material mixed with an organic metal complex (id.; citing Kido col. 3, ll. 9–12) where the organic metal complex can be Liq (id.; citing Kido col. 9, ll. 59–67) and the electron transporting material can be any electron transporting material, including imidazoles (id.; citing Kido col. 5, l. 39 to col. 7, l. 25). Relying on the disclosure of an example using Alq as the electron transporting material and Liq as the organic metal complex, where they are present at a 1:1 ratio, the Examiner finds Kido teaches the mixing Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 6 ratio of Liq to the electron transporting material of 1:1. Id. (citing Kido col. 9, ll. 59–67). The Examiner finds Bae teaches an electroluminescent device including an electron transporting layer comprising naphthoimidazole compounds, including compounds according to Appellants’ formula (1), which function as electron transporting material. Id. at 3–4 (citing Bae ¶¶ 8, 10–13, 131). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute (i.e., replace) the electron transporting material in the mixed layer of Kido, which can be imidazole, with naphthoimidazoles taught by Bae as electron transporting materials because “[t]he substitution would have been one electron transporting material for another electron transporting material and lead to the predictable results of using naphthoimidazole compounds as electron transporting materials in electroluminescence devices.” Id. at 3–4. As to the recited energy levels, the Examiner finds the energy levels of the conduction band and valance band of the electron transfer layer would naturally flow from the combination. Id. at 4. Appellants argue that Kido and Bae are not combinable references and, even if combined, the references do not disclose or suggest the claimed subject matter. Br. 10. We find both arguments to be founded on Appellants’ misapprehension of the meaning of claim 1 and placing too great an importance on the name given the layers rather than looking to the composition and function disclosed in the prior art. Maintaining that the organic light emitting diode of claim 1 includes an unrecited electron injection layer, Appellants argue that the electron Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 7 transfer layer is a distinct layer disposed between the light emitting layer and the electron injection layer. Id. at 11 (citing Spec. Fig. 3, ¶ 20). Appellants argue that the Examiner has erred in equating the “mixed layer” of Kido with Appellants’ electron transfer layer because Kido’s layer is instead an electron injection layer. Id. Appellants argue that Kido “discloses that an organic OLED structure which operates without the use of an ‘electronic transport layer’ [and therefore] . . . Kido does not disclose or suggest ‘an electron transfer layer.’” Id. at 12 (citing Kido Fig. 1). Appellants further argue that the Examiner erred in alleging that Kido’s electron transporting material (i.e., Alq included in the mixed layer) is an organic electron transporting material because it is a metallic complex, which would not be classified as an “organic compound,” rather than an “organic substance” as set forth in the claim. Id. at 13. Appellants also argue the only disclosure of the 1:1 mixing ratio for Liq is with Alq (id. at 14), which they argue is not an organic compound. Based on the premise that Kido eliminates the “electron transport layer” in favor of mixing electron transport material into the “electron injection layer,” Appellants argue Kido is irrelevant as a reference to provide subject matter of the claims which includes an electron transport layer. Id. at 14–15. Appellants argue that Bae discloses an OLED which operates without the “electronic injection layer” (id. at 16; citing Bae Fig. 1) and therefore cannot be combined with the OLED of Kido which operates without the “electronic transport layer” because “each discloses an OLED device Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 8 which operates mutually exclusive of each other either in the electron injection layer or the electron transport layer” (id. at 16–17). Appellants further argue that if the OLED formed by the combination of Kido and Bae would be operable, it would not provide or suggest the claimed invention including the “electron transfer layer [having] a conduction band of 5.58eV and a valance band of 3.153eV to obtain a lowest driving voltage” because Kido and Bae are silent as to including the Liq in the electron transport layer. Id. at 17. Finally, in view of their arguments that the electron injection layer of Kido’s OLED and the electron transport layer of Bae are mutually exclusive in their operation and a combination, if operable, would not provide the claimed invention, Appellants argue the Examiner has failed to provide the necessary articulated reasoning to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Id. at 18. On the record before us, we do not find the Examiner has erred reversibly thereby failing to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Because we conclude that claim 1 does not require an electron injection layer, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s reliance on Kido because the relied on layer was formed of a “mixture of an organic substance and Liq” (claim 1) and positioned “between the light emitting layer and the cathode” (see Ans. 13). As to Appellants’ argument that the “mixed layer” of Kido is instead an “electron injection layer” and that Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 9 Kido’s OLED operates without an electron transfer layer, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred because, however Kido’s layer is labeled, there is no persuasive evidence on this record that it does not function as an electron transport layer as set forth by the Examiner. See id.; see also id. at 3 (citing Kido col. 3, ll. 9–12). Accordingly, we also find no merit to Appellants’ arguments that Kido is irrelevant as a reference to provide subject matter which includes an electron transport layer. Br. 14–15. As to Appellants’ argument that Alq is not an organic electron transporting material because it is a metallic complex and would not be classified as an “organic compound[]” (id. at 13), we are not persuaded the Examiner erred because it does not necessarily follow that “an organic electron transporting material” is an “organic compound[]” without an inorganic component. Further, we find no persuasive evidence on this record that the 1:1 mixing molar ratio of Liq to Alq taught by Kido is not applicable to the mixing ratio of Liq to the second compound (including compounds other than Alq) where Alq and the second compound are both electron transporting material. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument . . . cannot take the place of evidence.”). As to Appellants’ argument that Kido and Bae are not combinable because they disclose OLED devices operating in either the electron injection layer or the electron transport layer to the exclusion of the other layer (Br. 16–17), we find it has no persuasive merit. See Ans. 15 (citing Bae ¶ 131). We note for emphasis that paragraph 131 of Bae describes “form[ing] an electron-injecting/transporting layer,” that is, forming a layer with both functions. Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 10 As to Appellants’ further arguments premised on Kido or Bae being silent as to including the Liq in the electron transport layer (Br. 16, 17) such that the combination would not provide the claimed invention, including providing the recited “conduction band of 5.58eV and [] valance band of 3.153eV,” we find them without persuasive merit for reasons set forth above and in the Examiner’s Answer. As to Appellants’ argument the Examiner has failed to provide the necessary articulated reasoning to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (Br. 18), we find it without merit on the record before us: [T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notify[ing] the applicant . . . [by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C. § 132. That section “is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The requisite procedural burden has been carried for the reasons given above and in the Examiner’s Answer. Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the ground of rejection of claims 1 and 3 over Kido and Bae under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of claims 1 and 3 over Kido 2005 in view of Bae The Examiner finds Kido 2005 teaches a light emitting diode comprising an anode and cathode with organic layers, including a luminescent layer and an organometallic containing layer. Ans. 4 (citing Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 11 Kido 2005 ¶¶ 25, 36). The Examiner finds the “organometallic containing layer can be composed of an organic electron transporting material mixed with an organometallic complex” (id.; citing Kido 2005 ¶¶ 36, 72, 92) and that Kido 2005 discloses a mixed layer composed of BCP mixed with Liq (id.; citing Kido 2005 ¶ 92). The Examiner further finds Kido 2005 teaches the electron transporting material can be any electron transporting material (id. at 4–5; citing Kido 2005 ¶¶ 69, 72). The Examiner finds the ratio of organometallic material to electron transporting material in the mixed layer can be 1:1. Id. at 5 (citing Kido 2005 ¶¶ 37, 92). The Examiner finds Bae teaches an electroluminescent device including an electron transporting layer comprising naphthoimidazole compounds, including compounds according to Appellants’ formula (1), which function as electron transporting material. Id. at 5 (citing Bae ¶¶ 8, 10–13, 131). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute (i.e., replace) the electron transporting material in the mixed layer of Kido 2005, which can be an imidazole compound, with naphthoimidazoles taught by Bae as electron transporting materials because “[t]he substitution would have been one electron transporting material for another electron transporting material and lead to the predictable results of using naphthoimidazole compounds as electron transporting materials in electroluminescence devices.” Id. at 5–6. As to the recited energy levels, the Examiner finds the energy levels of the conduction band and valance band of the electron transfer layer would naturally flow from the combination. Id. at 6. Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 12 Appellants argue that Kido 2005 is similar to Kido, except that it “discloses a mixed layer of organometallic complex contain[ing] layer using bathocuproine (“BCP”) instead of using “Alq” as an electron transporting material.” Br. 20. Appellants argue that the OLED of Kido 2005, like that of Kido, “is missing the alleged ‘electron transport layer’ which is recited in Appellant’s claim 1.” Id. Appellants rely on their arguments as to the rejection over Kido in view of Bae. Id. at 20–21. Finding Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive as to the rejection of claim 1 over Kido in view of Bae, we likewise are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection over Kido 2005 in view of Bae. Accordingly, we sustain the ground of rejection of claim 1 over Kido 2005 and Bae under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection of claim 6 over Kuribayashi in view of Kido and Bae The Examiner finds Kuribayashi teaches an electroluminescent displayer device comprising a first substrate with a driving element and a second element comprising a light emitting diode. Ans. 6 (citing Kuribayashi Fig. 7, col. 10, ll. 15–22). The Examiner finds Kuribayashi teaches the light emitting diode is composed of an anode and cathode with an organic layer between the two electrodes and that the organic layer includes a light emitting layer. Id. (Kuribayashi col. 7, ll. 20–31). The Examiner relies on Kido for its teaching of an organic light emitting diode—as set forth for the rejection of claims 1 and 3—and further for teaching that the “light emitting diode comprising the mixed layer has a reduced energy barrier of electron injection from the cathode to the light Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 13 emitting layer and the device using this layer has a lower drive voltage.” Id. at 6–7. The Examiner relies on Bae for its teaching of naphthoimidazole compounds, including compounds according to Appellants’ formula (1), which function as electron transporting material—as set forth for the rejection of claims 1 and 3. Id. at 7. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the electroluminescent device of Kuribayashi to use the light emitting diode of Kido in order to reduce the energy barrier of electron injection from the cathode to the light emitting layer and lower the drive voltage of the device (id.) and to further to modify the light emitting diode by making the substitution to include the naphthoimidazole compounds of Bae—as set forth for the rejection of claims 1 and 3 (id. at 7–8). As to the recited energy levels, the Examiner finds the energy levels of the conduction band and valance band of the electron transfer layer would naturally flow from the combination. Id. at 8. Appellants rely on their arguments as to claim 1. Br. 18. Finding those arguments unpersuasive as to claim 1, we likewise are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the ground of rejection of claim 6 over Kuribayashi, Kido, and Bae under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 14 Rejection of claim 6 over Kuribayashi in view of Kido 2005 and Bae The Examiner relies on Kuribayashi for its teaching of an electroluminescent displayer device—as set forth for the rejection of claim 6 above. Ans. 8. The Examiner relies on Kido 2005 for its teaching of an organic light emitting diode—as set forth for the rejection of claims 1 and 3—and further for teaching that “having the organometallic layer in the light emitting diode lower[s] the energy barrier of electron injection from the cathode to the light emitting layer and . . . that devices containing the organometallic layer are more stable and have better driving properties.” Id. at 9 (citing ¶¶ 22, 23). The Examiner relies on Bae for its teaching of naphthoimidazole compounds, including compounds according to Appellants’ formula (1), which function as electron transporting material—as set forth for the rejection of claims 1 and 3. Ans. 9. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the electroluminescent device of Kuribayashi to use the light emitting diode of Kido 2005 in order to reduce the energy barrier of electron injection from the cathode to the light emitting layer and to have a device with better stability and driving properties” (id. at 10) and to further to modify the light emitting diode by making the substitution to include the naphthoimidazole compounds of Bae—as set forth for the rejection of claims 1 and 3 (id.). As to the recited energy levels, the Examiner finds the energy levels of the conduction band and valance band of the electron transfer layer would naturally flow from the combination. Id. Appeal 2013-001606 Application 12/269,228 15 Appellants rely on their arguments as to claim 1. Br. 21. Finding those arguments unpersuasive as to claim 1, we likewise are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Accordingly, we sustain the ground of rejection of claim 6 over Kuribayashi, Kido 2005, and Bae under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 3, and 6. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation