13997494 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

Ex Parte Li et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 2, 2019

13997494 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/997,494 11/12/2013 126542 7590 01/18/2019 Riverside Law LLP/Universal Display Corporation Glenhardie Corporate, Center Glenhardie Two 1285 Drummers Lane, Suite 202 Wayne, PA 19087 JingboLi 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. 206102-0072-00-US.603428 8854 EXAMINER OJEH, NDUKA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/18/2019 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): dockets@riversidelaw.com dcoccia@riversidelaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JINGBO LI and SHINICHIRO SONODA Appeal 2018-002650 Application 13/997 ,494 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicants ("Appellants") 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1 and 9--17. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Because we discern no error in the Examiner's factual findings, analysis, and legal conclusion as set forth in the Examiner's 1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as "UDC Ireland Limited" (Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2017 ("Appeal Br.") 3). 2 Appeal Br. 6-11; Reply Brief filed January 16, 2018 ("Reply Br.") 2--4; Final Office Action entered March 7, 2017 ("Final Act.") 3-13; Examiner's Answer entered November 16, 2017 ("Ans.") 2-7. Appeal2018-002650 Application 13/997 ,494 Answer and the Final Office Action, we adopt them as our own and add the following for emphasis. I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to an organic electroluminescent device (Specification filed June 24, 2013 ("Spec.") ,r 1). Figure 3D ( annotated) is illustrative and is reproduced from the Drawings filed June 24, 2013, as follows: organic El layer refiective iayer ! i FIG. 3D 7 light-emitting region '-fÂ·-------------Â·------Â·-- -+l ' 5mm ' f.lEÂ·Â·"'"'"""""""""""''"'"""""'""'"'""'"""""'"'""'"""""'""'"""""'""""'-l>'. Â· 40rnrn Â· Figure 3D above shows "a simulation model of an organic electroluminescent device" including a united member 9 of a prism layer and a fine particle layer as a light-extracting unit, a transparent substrate 4, an organic electroluminescent layer 2, and a composite reflective layer 6 (Spec. Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, with key limitations emphasized, as follows: 1. An organic electroluminescent device comprising, in an order mentioned: a reflective electrode; an organic electroluminescent layer; 2 Appeal2018-002650 Application 13/997 ,494 a transparent substrate; and a light-extracting unit, wherein the light-extracting unit comprises a light- extracting member and a light distribution-converting member, wherein the light-extracting member comprises a prism layer formed of a prism or of a prism array, and wherein the light distribution-converting member comprises fine particles having a refractive index between 1.55 and 2.6 and a polymer having a refractive index between about 1. 5 5 and 1. 9 5. (Appeal Br. 13). II. REJECTION ON APPEAL On appeal, the Examiner maintains a rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) of claims 1 and 9--17 as unpatentable over Juni et al. 3 ("Juni") in view of Wang et al. 4 ("Wang") (Ans. 2-7; Final Act. 3-13). III. DISCUSSION The Appellants rely on the arguments offered in support of claim 1 for all claims on appeal (Appeal Br. 6-11). Therefore, we confine our discussion to claim 1, which we select as representative pursuant to 3 7 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). As provided by this rule, claims 9-17 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Juni discloses an organic electroluminescent device satisfying every limitation recited in claim 1 except for "a prism layer formed of a prism or of a prism array" as specified in the claim (Final Act. 3) (relying on Juni Fig. 3 and ,r,r 106-107, 119, 190-191). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Juni teaches a light-extracting unit 7 /8 comprising a transparent layer 7 and a light-distribution-converting member 8 including 3 US 2005/0142379 Al, published June 30, 2005. 4 US 2007/0121227 Al, published May 31, 2007. 3 Appeal2018-002650 Application 13/997 ,494 fine particles and a polymer having refractive indices within the Appellants' specified ranges (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds further that Juni teaches an alternative embodiment in which the light-extracting member 7 comprises a prism layer 8 formed of a prism or prism array (id. at 3--4) (relying on Juni Fig. 5 and ,r,r 122, 185). Additionally, the Examiner finds that Wang teaches a light-extracting unit 12, 13 comprising a light-extracting member 12 formed of a prism or a prism array and a light-distribution converting member comprising fine particles 13 (Final Act. 4) (relying on Wang Fig. 5 and ,r,r 31, 3 6, 41 ). Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Juni with the teaching of Wang ... in order to improve the brightness of the display while enhancing transmittance of light and reduce the total internal reflection of the light. (Final Act. 4) ( citing Wang ,r 12). According to the Examiner, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected that combining two known techniques for scattering light-a diffusion/fine particles layer and a prismatic structure-would provide an additive effect, which would have been an expected result (Ans. 5; Final Act. 4). The Appellants' principal argument is that Juni teaches away from combining a diffusion fine particles layer with a prismatic structure because Juni teaches that the diffusion fine particles layer is replaced by a prismatic structure (Appeal Br. 7) (relying on Juni ,r 122). In addition, the Appellants argue that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have relied on Wang's teachings concerning a film for an LCD backlight to modify Juni' s organic electroluminescent device because an organic electroluminescent device does not use any backlight (Appeal Br. 8). 4 Appeal2018-002650 Application 13/997 ,494 The Appellants' arguments fail to identify any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Juni's Figure 3 (annotated) is reproduced as follows: FIG. 3 mcon-,bin&ti-::-11 3 neg,oi; n,,fie<;tiv>? r,ole ,,,,e,,trods: 7 (8) transparent (iight- diifclsii:in layer) 2 tr~nspare:"lt 8!ectr(}de Juni' s Figure 3 above depicts an organic electroluminescent device comprising a support substrate 1, a light-diffusion layer 8 for substantially disturbing light reflection in which diffusion particles are dispersed in a transparent layer 7 matrix ( whereby emission brightness is increased), a transparent electrode 2, a hole transfer layer 4, an electron emissive layer 5, and a reflective electrode 3 (Juni ,r,r 106-107, 119, 122-123). Juni teaches an alternative embodiment in which "the light-diffusion layer 8 can be replaced by a micro-lens array or physical prismatic structure formed on the light-emitting surface of the support substrate 1 serving also as the transparent layer 7" (id. Fig. 5 and ,r 122; emphasis in italics added). Juni teaches that the resin material for the diffusion layer 8 has a refractive index 5 Appeal2018-002650 Application 13/997 ,494 of around 1.65, which is further enhanced by adding ultra-fine particles having a refractive index not less than 1.9, preferably not less than 2.5 (id. ,r,r 190-191 ). Wang's Figure 5 (annotated) is reproduced as follows: 1 la 2d surface llb 15 light beam FIG.5 1st meandering surface 12a 12b 2d meandering \ surface 12 curved prism units 13 light scattering particles 1 brightness enhancement film Wang's Figure 5 above depicts "a brightness, enhancement film having curved prism units and light scattering particles contained in the curved prism units" (Wang ,r,r 12, 28, 36). According to Wang, "the curved prism units extending in a meandering line enhances the entire light-collecting efficiency in two dimensions, and the light scattering particles also enhance transmittance of light and reduce total internal reflection of light" (id. ,r 12). Given the collective teachings found in Juni and Wang, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to provide a light enhancement layer including both prismatic structures and light-diffusing fine particles, as shown in Wang, as the light-scattering or brightness-enhancing layer in Juni with a reasonable expectation of obtaining the additive light-scattering effects known for each of the prismatic structures and the light-diffusing fine 6 Appeal2018-002650 Application 13/997 ,494 particles layer. Consistent with the Examiner's position (Ans. 2-3), Juni's teaching of an alternative embodiment in which the light-diffusing fine particles layer may be "replaced" with prismatic structures does not constitute a teaching away from the Appellants' claimed invention, as Juni does not discourage, discredit, or criticize using a combination of both prismatic structures as well as light-diffusing fine particles in a unitary layer, as exemplified in Wang. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We find no persuasive merit in the Appellants' argument that Wang cannot be combined with Juni because the former relates to a film for an LCD backlight whereas the latter relates to an organic electroluminescent device. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 7), the Appellants' argument fails at the outset because Juni teaches that an electroluminescent device may be used as a backlight for an LCD (Juni ,r 2). For these reasons and those well-stated by the Examiner, we sustain the Examiner's rejection as maintained against claim 1. IV. SUMMARY The Examiner's rejection is sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 1 and 9-17 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 7