Chuanjun Xia et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2020

14838874 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020)

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.
14/838,874 08/28/2015 Chuanjun Xia 206172-0091-00-
US.604719
1925
126542 7590 08/27/2020
Riverside Law LLP/Universal Display Corporation
Glenhardie Corporate, Center Glenhardie Two
1285 Drummers Lane, Suite 202
Wayne, PA 19087
EXAMINER
GARRETT, DAWN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1786
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2020 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):
dcoccia@riversidelaw.com
dockets@riversidelaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHUANJUN XIA, TING-CHIH WANG, and
CHUN LIN

Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, SHELDON M. McGEE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19, 23, and 43–45. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Universal
Display Corporation (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

2
Appellant’s invention is directed to a mixture of compounds useful for
performing triplet-triplet annihilation upconversion, and devices, such as
organic light emitting diodes, including the mixture (Spec. ¶ 3). Appellant’s
invention also is directed to a compound comprising a sensitizer group, an
acceptor group, and an emitter group wherein the compound is capable of
triplet-triplet annihilation (Spec. ¶ 29; claim 23).
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A formulation comprising a mixture of:
a sensitizer;
an acceptor; and
an emitter;
wherein the acceptor has a first triplet energy lower than
a first triplet energy of the sensitizer;
wherein the emitter has a first singlet energy lower than a
first singlet energy of the acceptor; and
wherein the sensitizer, the acceptor, and the emitter are
jointly capable of performing triplet-triplet annihilation
upconversion of light incident on the formulation to emit a
luminescent radiation comprising a radiation component from
the first singlet energy of the emitter.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–15, 17, 18, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Aziz (US 6,392,250 B1; issued May
21, 2002) in view of Oh (EP 1 437 395 A2; published July 14,
2004).
2. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Aziz in view of Oh and Burrows (US 5,917,280; issued
June 29, 1999).
3. Claims 1–18, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

3
unpatentable over Hieda (US 2004/0232830 A1; published
Nov. 25, 2004) in view of Oh.
4. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Hieda in view of Burrows.
5. Claims 23 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Tokito (US 7,250,226 B2; issued July 31,
2007) in view of Mori (US 5,281,489; issued Jan. 25, 1994) and
Oh.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Rejection (1)
The Examiner finds that Aziz teaches the subject matter of claim 1,
except for the specific pyrene derivatives recited by Appellant in claim 8
(Final Act. 2–3). The Examiner finds that Oh teaches using modified pyrene
as recited in claim 8 as a fluorescent dopant (Final Act. 3). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to select Oh’s pyrene as a
fluorescent dopant in Aziz’s mixed layer as the substitution of one known
functional material for another (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that
based on the identity of Aziz’s and Oh’s compounds to those recited in the
claims, the compounds would inherently function as a sensitizer, an
acceptor, and an emitter as recited in the claims (Final Act. 4).
Appellant argues that although Aziz teaches that “at least one selected
dopant” may be added to the mixed region 38, Aziz does not instruct how to
select the dopants to affect upconversion of light based on their
singlet/triplet energies (Appeal Br. 5–6). Appellant argues that Aziz and Oh
fail to motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to create a formulation of
a sensitizer, an acceptor, and an emitter having the excited energy state
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

4
relationship recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7–8). Although Appellant does
not disagree with the Examiner’s finding that it would have been within the
skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art to make an emitting layer of Aziz
of three dopants, Appellant contends that the recited energy characteristics
depend on a precise selection which is not taught or suggested by the prior
art (Appeal Br. 10 n.6). Appellant argues that Aziz provides no direction on
which three dopants to select (Appeal Br. 15). Appellant contends that
having more than one dopant in a single emitting layer of an organic light
emitting diode (OLED) can result in quenching of excited states between
dopants, which can lead to a decrease in quantum efficiency (Appeal Br. 15).
Appellant argues that a combination of old elements in the absence of
motivation to modify is not, without more, prima facie obvious (Appeal Br.
16). Appellant argues that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight
because Aziz does not expressly teach using three dopants and the only
teaching to use three dopants is in Appellant’s claims (Appeal Br. 18–19).
The Examiner finds that Aziz teaches using at least one dopant, which
includes one or more dopants, such as three dopants (Ans. 4). The Examiner
finds that Aziz teaches preferred dopants that are identical to those recited in
the claims (Ans. 4–5). The Examiner finds that Aziz teaches using pyrenes
as dopants but does not teach the particular pyrene-amine recited in claim 8
(Ans. 3–4). The Examiner relies on Oh to teach the particular pyrene-amine
recited in the claims as a pyrene dopant in an OLED (Ans. 3–4). The
Examiner finds that because the same compounds as disclosed by Appellant
and recited in the claims are used in Aziz, then the recited excited singlet-
triplet energy state along with triplet-triplet annihilation would have flowed
naturally from using the same materials (Ans. 14–15). We agree.
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

5
Appellant concedes that it would have been obvious in light of Aziz’s
teaching to form composition having three dopants (Appeal Br. 10, n.6).
Appellant contends that there is no reason, absent hindsight, to select the
three particular dopants having the recited energy properties based on the
teachings of Aziz and Oh (Appeal Br. 18–19). Appellant’s arguments do not
contest that Aziz teaches dopants such as fac tris (2-phenylpyridine)iridium
(i.e., Ir(ppy)3) and anthracene that are identical to those claimed and
disclosed by Appellant (Appeal Br. generally). Aziz further teaches that
pyrene can be used as a dopant but Aziz does not teach the pyrene-amine
recited in claim 82 (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Oh teaches the
particular pyrene-amine recited in claim 8 that is used as a dopant in an
OLED device (Final Act. 3). In other words, the Examiner reasonably
concludes that it would have been obvious to use Aziz’s preferred dopants in
the OLED device. Although Appellant contends that there is no reason
except for hindsight to select only three dopants having the triplet/singlet
energy properties recited in the claims, we determine that Aziz’s teaching to
use anthracene, pyrene, and Ir(ppy)3 as dopants among the disclosed
dopants, in combination with Oh’s teaching of a pyrene-amine suitable as a
dopant for an OLED, would have rendered obvious their use. Merck v.
Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d. 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“That the
‘813 patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render
any particular formulation less obvious.”).
Appellant’s arguments concerning the lack of a reason for the
particular dopant selections is misplaced because the Examiner finds that

2 Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further limits the acceptor limitation in
claim 1 by reciting specific acceptors.
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

6
Aziz teaches using each of the disclosed dopants and Oh teaches an
acceptable pyrene-amine material for use as a dopant in an OLED (Final
Act. 2–3). The Examiner finds that the substitution of Oh’s pyrene-amine
for Aziz’s pyrene is merely a substitution of one known functional material
for another (Final Act. 3). Appellant argues that the office provides little or
no reason why a person of ordinary skill would have created the claimed
formulation with the dopant of Aziz and the pyrene dopant of Oh, other than
that each component was previously known (Appeal Br. 13). Appellant does
not, however, dispute the Examiner’s reason for the modification based upon
the predictable substitution of one known dopant for another (Appeal Br.
12–20). The Examiner additionally determines that based on the disclosures
of Aziz and Oh of a limited number of effective solutions, it would have
been obvious to try the various disclosed dopants that are effective for use in
an OLED, including Aziz’s disclosed anthracene, Ir(ppy)3 and pyrene, and
Oh’s pyrene-amine dopant (Ans. 18–19). Appellant does not specifically
dispute the Examiner’s obvious to try rationale (Reply Br. 2–6). See also In
re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]here a skilled artisan
merely pursues ‘known options’ from a ‘finite number of identified,
predictable solutions,’ obviousness under § 103 arises.” (quoting KSR Int’l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)).
We do not find that the Examiner engaged in impermissible hindsight.
Rather, the Examiner applied the teachings of the references in arriving at
the conclusion that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.
Appellant argues for the first time in the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s
proposed combination would have changed Aziz’s principle of operation
because Aziz’s dopants would not function as emitters or as a final energy
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

7
receiver (Reply Br. 4). We will not consider this untimely argument because
there is no reason that this argument could not have been made earlier in
prosecution. See 37 CFR 41.41(b)(2). We find that the preponderance of
the evidence favors the Examiner’s findings and conclusions of the
obviousness of claims 1, 4–10, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 45 over Aziz and Oh.

Claims 11, 17, and 44
Appellant argues that claims 11, 17, and 44 require the acceptor to
comprise at least 50 wt.% of the total mass of the mixture of the sensitizer,
the acceptor, and the emitter combined (Appeal Br. 22). Appellant contends
that the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is conclusory and based on
hindsight (Appeal Br. 22). Appellant argues that a person of ordinary skill
would have had to select the three dopants from Aziz’s list of dopants and
then select one of the three to function as an acceptor and use that dopant in
an amount of 50% of the total composition (Appeal Br. 22).
Appellant’s arguments regarding the selection of the particular three
dopants are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above in this decision.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s rejection
is conclusory and based on hindsight. The Examiner’s rejection is based
upon Aziz’s teaching that anthracene may be used as the electron transport
material in the mixed region 38 (Final Act. 4). The Examiner further finds
that Aziz teaches that the mixed region may include mixtures of any of the
suitable exemplary hole transport materials, electron transport materials, and
dopant materials described (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that the
amount of the electron transport material may be 95 to 5 wt.% of the mixed
region (Final Act. 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

8
obvious to have formed a mixed region having at least 50 wt.% of
anthracene material of the total emitter, acceptor, and sensitizer materials in
the mixed region because Aziz teaches a range that includes anthracene in
that proportional amount (Final Act. 4). Appellant’s broad arguments do not
address the Examiner’s specific findings based on Aziz’s teachings.
We affirm the § 103 rejection of claims 11, 17, and 44 over Aziz in
view of Oh.

Claims 2, 3, and 13
Appellant argues that the emitter component of claim 2 must have
both a “first singlet energy lower than a first singlet energy of the acceptor”
as recited in claim 1, and a “first triplet energy higher than the first triplet
energy of the acceptor” as recited in claim 2 (Appeal Br. 23). Appellant
contends that there is a technical reason for this respective ordering of the
two singlet/triplet energy states which is not taught or suggested by Aziz and
Oh (Appeal Br. 23).
Claim 3 requires that the emitter has a first triplet energy higher than
the first triplet energy of the sensitizer, and wherein the emitter has the first
singlet energy higher than the first singlet energy of the sensitizer.
Appellant argues that the three-component formulation was designed to
minimize competing pathways for the generated singlet state of the
sensitizer (Appeal Br. 23–24).
The Examiner finds that the claims do not require the very specific
triplet-triplet annihilation upconversion (TTA-UC) (Ans. 24, 25). The
Examiner finds that claim 1 and claim 2 by its dependency on claim 1 only
require that the emitter, acceptor, and sensitizer be “capable of” the TTA-UC
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

9
(Ans. 12). We agree that the claims only require materials capable of
performing the TTA-UC process.
The Examiner finds that Aziz and Oh teach materials identical to the
claimed acceptor and emitter (Ans. 24, 25). The Examiner explains that
Aziz’s and Oh’s identical materials would have the same properties
including the TTA-UC (Ans. 25).
Appellant’s argument does not show reversible error with the respect
to these findings. Because Aziz and Oh teach materials identical to those
disclosed and claimed by Appellant it is reasonable to determine that these
materials would have been capable of performing the TTA-UC. In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Products of identical
composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.”).
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, and 13 over
Aziz and Oh.

Rejection (3): § 103 Hieda in view of Oh
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 should be reversed for
the same reason that the rejection of claim 1 over Aziz and Oh should be
reversed (Appeal Br. 24). As discussed above, we did not find that
Appellant has established reversible error with the Examiner’s § 103
rejection over Aziz and Oh. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Appellant argues that Hieda’s disclosure is similar to that in Aziz in
that Hieda is an OLED with a phosphorescent emitter within an organic host
material(s) (Appeal Br. 25). Appellant contends that Hieda does not disclose
anything about making or creating a formulation from a precise selection of
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

10
dopants, nor an emitting layer of an OLED from such dopants (Appeal Br.
24). Appellant argues that the Examiner dismissed or discounted the critical
relative ordering of the lower singlet/triplet energy levels of the three recited
components in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 26).
The Examiner finds that Hieda teaches an OLED having a
luminescent layer comprising a host material and dopant material (Final Act.
7). The Examiner finds that Hieda teaches the luminescent layer may
contain anthracene or rubrene as the host material with pyrene derivatives
and tris(2-phenylpyridine) iridium or a platinum porphyrin as dopants (Final
Act. 7). The Examiner finds that Oh teaches a pyrene-derivative used as a
fluorescent dopant in an OLED (Final Act. 7). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to use Oh’s pyrene-derivative fluorescent dopant
as the pyrene-derivative dopant in Hieda’s device because Hieda and Oh are
directed to similar OLEDs (Final Act. 8).
Appellant’s arguments do not establish reversible error with the
Examiner’s stated rejection. Although Hieda may not disclose that the
particular dopants or host material possess the singlet/triplet energy
characteristics, Hieda and Oh teach the same materials used by Appellant in
the luminescent layer (Final Act. 7–8). Because the same materials are used,
Hieda’s composition would have the same singlet/triplet energy levels and
triplet-triplet annihilation properties as recited in the claim. In re Spada, 911
F.2d at 708.
Appellant argues the first time in the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s
proposed combination would have changed Hieda’s principle of operation
because Hieda’s dopants would not function as emitters (Reply Br. 4-5). We
will not consider this untimely argument because there is no reason that this
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

11
argument could not have been made earlier in prosecution. See 37 CFR
41.41(b)(2).
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–
18, 44, and 45 over Hieda and Oh.

Rejections (2) and (4): Claim 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 12 and further recites “wherein the first
device comprises an organic light emitting device comprising an emissive
material having an emissive spectrum; and the first organic layer is disposed
adjacent to the organic light emitting device such that light emitted by the
organic light emitting device is incident on the first organic layer.”
The Examiner finds that Aziz does not teach using multiple devices
together (Final Act. 5). The Examiner finds that Burrows teaches that
individual light emitting elements may be stacked wherein light emitted
from an upper placed OLED is incident upon a lower placed OLED (Final
Act. 5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
formed stacked devices and to have placed a device over another device
comprising a mixed region as taught by Aziz and Oh because a person of
ordinary skill would have expected that a stacked structure of devices to
provide multi-colored emission for a full color display device for a variety of
applications with a predictable result and reasonable expectation of success
(Final Act. 5).
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s determination that stacking an
OLED atop of Aziz’s OLED is not taught or suggested by the prior art and
the only suggestion to provide such an arrangement is based upon
impermissible hindsight (Appeal Br. 21).
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

12
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner’s reason for the
modification is based upon Burrow’s teaching that it was known to stack
OLEDs producing different colors atop one another to provide a
consolidated structure capable of producing and blending different colors
(e.g., a pixel) (Final Act. 5; Burrows col. 1, ll. 15–22). Burrows teaches that
the stacked OLED arrangement may be used in a wide variety of
applications including computer displays, informational displays in vehicles,
television monitors, telephones, printers, illuminated signs, large-area
screens, and billboards (Burrows, col. 2, ll. 13–17). Similarly, Aziz teaches
the OLED may be used in displays in automobiles and other types of
vehicles, computer monitors, televisions, and other electronic devices (Aziz,
col. 16, ll. 3–6).
Based upon the similarity of use, we find that the Examiner’s rejection
is not based on impermissible hindsight as argued by Appellant, but rather
what the teachings of the references would have suggested using a stacked
arrangement to provide a full color display in a variety of applications as
stated by the Examiner (Final Act. 5). Once combined, the Examiner
reasonably finds that because Aziz uses the same dopants, the up-conversion
of light emitted from a neighboring OLED would have resulted.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection (4) over Hieda in view of
Burrows, Appellant relies on the arguments made regarding the rejection of
Aziz in view of Oh and Burrows (Appeal Br. 26–27). We find those
arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claim 19 over Aziz in
view of Oh and Burrows, and Hieda in view of Burrows.

Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

13
Rejection (5): Claims 23 and 43
Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Tokito,
Mori, and Oh, either alone or collectively, to motivate a person of ordinary
skill to create the compound of claim 23 having all three structure/function
components in one compound, oligomer, or polymer (Appeal Br. 29).
Appellant contends that the Examiner merely finds that each structure is
known in the OLED art and then proceeds to stitch the functionalities
together (Appeal Br. 29). Appellant contends that the Examiner has not
provided the requisite motivation to add the third, emitter component, to
Tokito’s two component phosphorescent polymer (Appeal Br. 30).
Appellant contends that Tokito’s carrier group disclosure is quite limited to a
class of compounds that may include groups of tertiary amine, but the
Examiner has not explained why based on Tokito’s generic disclosure a
person of ordinary skill would have selected Oh’s S-16 pyrene compound as
the tertiary amine to add to Tokito’s polymer structure (Appeal Br. 30). We
agree.
The Examiner finds that Tokito teaches a phosphorescent compound
comprising phosphorescent and carrier transporting units (Final Act. 6). The
Examiner finds that Tokito teaches that the Ir(ppy)3 may be part of the
compound, which corresponds to the claimed sensitizer (Final Act. 6). The
Examiner finds that Tokito teaches using spacer portions in the compound
and hole carrier transport portion (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that
Tokito does not teach using anthracene as the carrier transport material
(Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Mori teaches using anthracene as a
hole moving agent (i.e., carrier transport), which would correspond to the
claimed acceptor group (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Tokito
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

14
discloses a hole carrier transport group comprising an amine but does not
exemplify a diaminopyrene derivative, which would correspond to the
claimed emitter group (Final Act. 6). The Examiner finds that Oh teaches a
tertiary amine compound S-16 for use in an electroluminescent device (Final
Act. 6). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have
formed Tokito’s polymer compound including spacer groups, an Ir(ppy)3
group, and known carrier transport type groups as disclosed by Mori and Oh,
because “one would expect the groups disclosed by Mori and Oh to be
useful as carrier transporting sites in a polymer according to Tokito” (Final
Act. 7).
Tokito discloses a polymer containing phosphorescent units and
carrier transporting units (Tokito, col. 2, ll. 33–39). Tokito discloses that the
carrier transporting units may include hole and/or electron transporting units
(Tokito, col. 3, ll. 47–50, col. 4, ll. 1–5). Tokito discloses that the carrier-
transporting unit includes at least one kind of groups selected from
monovalent groups of tertiary amines (Tokito, col. 4, ll. 47–67).
The Examiner finds that Oh teaches a tertiary amine that could be
used as the carrier-transporting group in Tokito’s polymer (Final Act. 6).
Oh teaches a separate compound that is added to the blend to impart a blue
emitting material to the mixture (¶¶ 15, 23, 34). In other words, Oh does not
teach using the blue emitter compound S-16 as a functional group on a
polymer in an emitter layer. The Examiner does not explain how a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have modified Oh’s distinct compound to a
tertiary amine group that would become part of Tokito’s polymeric
compound. We find that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
Appeal 2019-002618
Application 14/838,874

15
that the combined teachings of Tokito, Mori, and Oh would have rendered
obvious the compound recited in claim 23 or the device of claim 43.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 23 and 43 over
Tokito in view of Mori and Oh.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 USC § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15, 17, 18,
44, 45
103 Aziz, Oh 1–15, 17,
18, 44,
45

19 103 Aziz, Oh, Burrows
1–18, 44, 45 103 Hieda, Oh 1–18, 44,
45

19 103 Hieda, Burrows 19
23, 43 103 Tokito, Mori, Oh 23, 43
Overall
Outcome
1–19, 44,
45
23, 43

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART