Ex Parte Choi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10788153 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BEOHM-ROCK CHOI, JOON-HOO CHOI,
JAE-HOON CHUNG, JIN-KOO CHUNG,
DONG-WON LEE, and SANG-PIL LEE
____________________

Appeal 2010-009633
Application 10/788,153
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before: KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BRYAN F. MOORE, and JOHN G.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009633
Application 10/788,153

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-14, 16-23 and 52-54. Br. 2. Claims 15, 24-51 and 55-56 are
canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The claims are directed to an organic electro-luminescent display
device, and more particularly to an organic electro-luminescent display
device using a 4-color system for forming a color image. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An organic electro-luminescent display device,
comprising:
a first electrode formed on a substrate;
a plurality of second electrodes formed on the substrate
below the first electrode, the second electrodes forming red,
green, blue and white sub-pixels with the first electrode;
an organic luminescent layer formed between the first
and second electrodes, wherein the organic electro-luminescent
display device displays a full color image using a four-color
system of the red, green, blue and white sub-pixels.

REFERENCES
Kimura US 6,475,845 B2 Nov. 5, 2002
Siwinski US 7,012,588 B2 Mar. 14, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1-14, 16-23 and 52-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kimura and Siwinski. Ans. 3-7.
Appeal 2010-009633
Application 10/788,153

3

Issue
Appellants present the issues of whether the combination of Kimura
and Siwinski teaches “the organic electro-luminescent display device
displays a full color image using a four-color system of the red, green, blue
and white sub-pixels,” as recited in claim 1 and “a plurality of separating
walls disposed between adjacent second electrodes of the plurality of second
electrodes,” as recited in claim 52, thereby rendering obvious the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Analysis
Claim 1
Appellants argue that “Siwinski fails to include any disclosed
structure or indication that a full-color image is displayed using a four-color
system,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue that
“Siwinski compares the efficiency of white light to display the monochrome
image during the power saving mode produced using the red, green and blue
elements and the efficiency of the white light produced using the white
emitting pixel . . . and does not disclose a full color image displayed using
all four sub-pixels.” Id. at 8 (citing Siwinski, 2:62-3:10). This argument is
not persuasive of Examiner error.
Siwinski teaches “an OLED display for use according to the present
invention that contains four different colors of display light emitting
elements; red 12, green 14, blue 16 and white 18, arranged in a quad pattern
20.” Siwinski, 2:57-60. Siwinski also teaches:
Appeal 2010-009633
Application 10/788,153

4
An electronic device using this display could use only the more
efficient white light emitting elements to display white and gray
scale colors, and use the less efficient red and blue light
emitting elements only when those colors were needed. For
example, if a pixel of white light having 3 candelas of
brightness were to be produced using the red, green and blue
elements, the total amperes required would be 1/4 ampere for
the red, 1/10 ampere for the green and 1/2 ampere for the blue,
for a total of 17/20 of an ampere. In comparison, using the
white emitting pixel having a light emitting efficiency of 5
candelas/amp, 3/5 or 12/20 of an amp is required, thereby
realizing a 29% efficiency in power usage.

Siwinski, 2:64-3:10 (emphasis added).
We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention reading that disclosure would recognize that Siwinski
teaches using white, red, blue, and green together to display a screen and,
only in an alternative embodiment, using white light element to display the
white and grey areas of the screen. See Ans. 7. The permissive language
“could use” in the above cited text makes clear that what follows is an
alternative embodiment. Thus, we find that Siwinski teaches the organic
electro-luminescent display device displays a full color image using a four-
color system of the red, green, blue and white sub-pixels.”
Claim 52
Claim 52 recites “the light efficiency of the display device for a full
color image is determined by an equation incorporating luminance of the
red, green, blue and white lights.” Appellants further argue that Siwinski
does not determine the light efficiency for as full color image based on all
four colors red, green, blue, and white. Specifically, Appellants argue that
“the luminance of the colored pixel of Siwinski is represented by the
Appeal 2010-009633
Application 10/788,153

5
equation having three color variables of red, green and blue: Luminance =
(5/16)*red + (9/16)*green + (2/16)*blue (see, col. 3, line 20).” Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). This argument is not persuasive of Examiner error.
As above, we find that this formula relates to an alternate embodiment
which converts the red, green, and blue portions of the full color image into
a monochrome image that uses only the white sub-pixels. See Ans. 7-8. We
agree with the Examiner that “[i]t is inherent that ‘the light efficiency of the
display device for a full color image is determined by an equation
incorporating luminance of the red, green, blue, and white lights’, as recited
in claim 52.” Ans. 7. Inherency is a question of fact that arises both in the
context of anticipation and obviousness rejections. See In re Napier, 55 F.3d
610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirming a 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection based in
part on the inherent disclosure in one of the applied prior art references); see
also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 1983). As noted above,
Siwinski teaches using white, red, blue and green light elements to display
an image and luminance is a characteristic of those light elements which is
inherently related to light efficiency.
Claim 52 further recites “a plurality of separating walls disposed
between adjacent second electrodes of the plurality of second electrodes.”
Appellants argue that “[t]he insulating film 4017 is not properly analogized
to the claimed separating walls since Kimura does not show the insulating
film 4017 as being disposed between adjacent pixel electrodes 4016 (Fig. 11
B only shows one pixel electrode 4016).” Br. 10. This argument is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
The Examiner finds that:
Appeal 2010-009633
Application 10/788,153

6
Figure 11B clearly shows the emitting region (4018) between
adjacent separating walls (the tapered portions of item 4017)
and the separating walls are shown on both sides of the second
electrode (4016) (this is a common structure in OLED devices
that ensures that the pixel electrodes remain insulated from one
another). It is clear that the display includes more sub-pixels
with the same structure on the substrate, with partition walls
between adjacent second electrodes and the light-emitting
regions located between adjacent partition walls.

Ans. 8. In other words, Kimura clearly shows multiple sub-pixels used in a
display which must be located adjacent to one another. Since the insulating
film 4017 is shown on both sides of electrode 4016 and there is a plurality of
adjacent pixels, film 4017 would also face the side of an adjacent sub-pixel
which is not shown in the figure.
Appellants did not present substantive arguments for remaining claims
2-14, 16-23, 53 and 54, therefore, claims 2-14 and 16-23 fall with claim 1
and claims 53 and 54 fall with claim 52.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14, 16-23 and 52-54
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc