Ex Parte Cok

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2009

10694550 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RONALD S. COK
__________

Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550
Technology Center 2800
___________

Decided: January 26, 2009
___________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
CHARLES F. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-17, all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

The following Examiner’s rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-4, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Samuel1 and May.2
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Samuel, May, and Kawase.3
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Samuel, May, and Biebuyck.4
The claims on appeal are directed to an organic light emitting diode
(OLED) display. Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as follows:
1. An organic light emitting diode display, comprising:
a) a substrate;
b) a plurality of OLEDs formed on the substrate, the
OLEDs emitting polarized light wherein the OLEDs comprise:

i) a layer defining a periodic grating structure,
ii) a first electrode layer conforming to the grating
structure,

iii) an OLED material layer formed over the first
electrode layer and conforming to the grating structure, and

iv) a second electrode layer formed over the
OLED material layer and conforming to the grating structure,
wherein the first and/or second electrode layers are metallic
layers, whereby the periodic grating structure induces surface

1 US 6,967,437 B1 issued to Samuel et al. on November 22, 2005.
2 US 6,211,613 B1 issued to May on April 3, 2001.
3 US 6,815,886 B2 issued to Kawase on November 9, 2004.
4 US 5,855,994 issued to Biebuyck et al. on January 5, 1999.
2
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

plasmon cross coupling in the metallic electrode layer(s) to emit
polarized light; and

c) a polarizer located over the substrate or an
encapsulating cover through which the polarized light is
emitted, wherein the polarizer is oriented such that the emitted
polarized light passes through the polarizer without being
substantially absorbed.

Br. 13, Claims Appendix.5
B. ISSUES
Issue 1: Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred
in finding that the corrugated microstructure of the OLED in Samuel induces
surface plasmon cross coupling in the metallic electrode layer(s) to emit
polarized light as recited in claim 1?
Issue 2: Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred
in concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to position the polarizer disclosed in May over the substrate of the OLED
display in Samuel such that the emitted polarized light passes through the
polarizer as recited in claim 1?
Issue 3: Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred
in concluding that the combined teachings of Samuel, May, and Kawase
render obvious the subject matter of claims 5, 6, and 8?
Issue 4: Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner reversibly erred
in concluding that the combined teachings of Samuel, May, and Biebuyck
render obvious the subject matter of claims 14-17?

5 Appeal Brief dated May 16, 2007.
3
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

C. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence. Additional findings of fact as necessary appear in the Analysis
portion of the opinion.
1. Appellant’s Specification
According to the Appellant, it is known to use polarizers, such as
circular polarizers, with flat panel displays, such as OLED displays, to
reduce the reflection of ambient light on the front of the flat panel displays.
Spec. 1:9-15.
The Appellant also discloses that it has been proposed to use a
periodic, corrugated, grating structure to induce surface plasmon coupling
for the light emitting layer in an organic luminescent device, thereby
inhibiting lateral transmission and wave guiding of emitted light while
increasing the efficiency and the light output of the structure. Spec. 1:28-31.
2. Samuel
Samuel discloses that emissive species embedded in the emissive
layer of a light emitting diode (LED) structure emit their energy into the
available modes of the structure. These modes include trapped guided
modes, including waveguide modes and surface plasmon polariton modes
associated with the metal contacts. Samuel 2:55-60.
The invention disclosed in Samuel relates to OLEDs adapted for
improved efficiency light emission. The invention also provides a way to
control the polarization and spectrum of the emitted light. Samuel 1:9-12.
In its broadest aspect, the invention disclosed in Samuel is a LED
comprising at least one microstructured feature adapted to manipulate
spontaneous emission or propagation of light. Samuel 3:27-34.
4
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

The microstructured feature may be of any form adapted to control
emission and preferably comprises a substantially periodic microstructure
that is effective in controlling intensity, polarization, or spectrum of the
emitted light. Samuel 3:43-47, 3:53-58.
The microstructure preferably acts as a diffraction grating. Samuel
6:19.
In a preferred embodiment, the microstructure is in the form of
corrugation. Samuel 6:22-24, 9:14-29.
In the preferred embodiment, Samuel discloses that a strong
polarization effect was observed for the corrugated LED. Samuel 10:37-38.
3. May
May discloses an electroluminescent (EL) display comprising an
organic light-emitting device and a circular polarizer disposed in front of the
viewing surface of the light-emitting device. May 2:24-33.
May Figure 1 illustrates a light emitting polymer (LEP) display with a
circular polarizer. May 4:56-57. Figure 1 is reproduced below:

May Figure 1 depicts a LEP display
with a circular polarizer.
5
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

May discloses that the contrast of the display is increased by placing
circular polarizer 14 in front of the glass substrate 12 of the LEP device. In
particular, the effect of the circular polarizer can be seen by considering the
arrows denoting transmitted, reflected, and emitted light. The arrow Lt
denotes transmitted ambient light incident on the front surface of the display.
The arrow Lr denotes ambient light which is reflected from the display and
which is blocked by the circular polarizer. The arrow Le denotes light
emitted from the display which is not blocked by the circular polarizer. May
5:15-24.
D. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of
Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 13 (1966).
Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any
relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR, 127 S.
Ct. at 1734; Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
The test for obviousness is not that the claimed invention must be
expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
A person of ordinary skill is not an automaton but is a person of
ordinary creativity. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. One of ordinary skill in the art
6
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

is presumed to have skills apart from what the prior art references expressly
disclose. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 742 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
E. ANALYSIS
1. Issue 16
Referring to Samuel Figures 2 and 3, the Examiner found that Samuel
discloses:
[A]n organic Light emitting display, comprising: a substrate . . .,
a plurality of OLEDs (see Figure 3) formed on the substrate (1),
the OLEDS emitting polarized light wherein the OLEDS
comprise: a layer (photoresist) defining a periodic grating
structure (see column 9, lines 25-28), a first electrode layer . . .
conforming to the grating structure, an OLED material layer . . .
formed over the first electrode layer . . . and conforming to the
grating structure, and a second electrode layer . . . formed over
the OLED material layer conforming to the grating structure,
wherein the first . . . and/or second electrode . . . are metallic
layers, whereby the periodic grating structure induces surface
plasmon cross coupling in the metallic electrode layer (see
column 2, lines 55-62) to emit polarized light.

Ans. 3-4.7
The Appellant has not pointed to any error in the Examiner’s findings
that Samuel discloses an OLED comprising a periodic grating structure and
a first metallic electrode layer, an OLED material layer, and a second
metallic electrode layer conforming to the grating structure. Rather, the
Appellant argues that Samuel does not teach that the periodic grating
structure is configured to induce surface plasmon cross coupling in the
metallic electrode layer to emit polarized light. The Appellant argues that

6 The Appellant does not argue that claims 2-4, 7, and 9-13 are separately
patentable from claim 1.
7 Examiner’s Answer dated September 11, 2007.
7
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

Samuel attributes polarized light emission to microstructure features adapted
to result in Bragg scattering, not surface plasmon cross coupling. Br. 9-10.
To the extent that Samuel does not expressly disclose that “the
periodic grating structure induces surface plasmon cross coupling in the
metallic electrode layer(s) to emit polarized light,” this fact alone is not
persuasive of reversible error. See W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock,
Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“it is . . . irrelevant that those
using the invention may not have appreciated the results”).
Samuel discloses that the microstructure preferably comprises
features in the form of physical structuring, such as corrugation, and that the
microstructure preferably acts as a diffraction grating. Samuel 6:19-24;
compare Appellant’s Fig. 1. In a preferred embodiment, the electrodes also
comprise the microstructure. See, e.g., Samuel 6:10-14.
Samuel discloses that the periodic microstructure improves
polarization purity of emitted radiation. Samuel 3:53-58. Indeed, Samuel
discloses that a strong polarization effect was observed for the corrugated
LED. Samuel 10:37-38.
The Appellant has failed to direct us to any structure recited in claim 1
that distinguishes the claimed periodic grating structure from the corrugated
microstructure of the OLED in Samuel. Thus, based on the record before us,
it is reasonable to find that the corrugated microstructure of the OLED in
Samuel “induces surface plasmon cross coupling in the metallic electrode
layer(s) to emit polarized light” as recited in claim 1. See Spec. 1:28-31.
To the extent that Samuel discusses “Bragg scattering” in connection
with the disclosed periodic microstructure, Samuel expressly discloses that it
8
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

does not intend to be limited to this theory. See Samuel 3:48-52 (“Without
being limited to this theory . . . .”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner reversibly erred in finding that the corrugated microstructure of
the OLED in Samuel induces surface plasmon cross coupling in the metallic
electrode layer(s) to emit polarized light as recited in claim 1.
2. Issue 2
The Examiner found that Samuel does not disclose that the OLED
further comprises a polarizer as recited in claim 1. Nonetheless, the
Examiner found that May discloses an EL device comprising a circular
polarizer oriented such that the emitted light passes through the polarizer
without being substantially absorbed. The Examiner also found that May
teaches that the polarizer is suitable for improving the contrast of the display
by absorbing light from the environment. Ans. 4.
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide the OLED of Samuel with a polarizer as in
May to increase the contrast of the image. Ans. 4.
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s finding
that May discloses a separate polarizer. Rather, the Appellant argues that
the EL device disclosed in May is not configured to initially emit polarized
light. Br. 10.
It is of no moment that May does not disclose an EL device wherein
the OLED emits polarized light. The Examiner relied on May to establish
that polarizers were known in the art to enhance the contrast of an EL
display and would likewise have been expected to enhance the contrast of
the light-emitting display in Samuel. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
9
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

The Appellant also argues that May does not teach or suggest
orienting the disclosed polarizer in any specific direction relative to the light
emitted from the EL device itself. Br. 10.
To the contrary, May Figure 1 shows a polarizer oriented in front of a
display wherein the direction of transmitted, reflected, and emitted light is
illustrated. In particular, May discloses that Figure 1 shows that ambient
light is blocked by the polarizer whereas light emitted from the display is not
blocked by the polarizer, thereby increasing the contrast of the display. See
May 5:15-24. We find that it would have been within the skill of the
ordinary artisan to adjust the position of the polarizer relative to the light-
emitting display of Samuel to increase the contrast of the display in the
manner taught by May Figure 1.
For the reasons set forth above, the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner reversibly erred in concluding that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to position the polarizer disclosed in May over
the substrate of the OLED display in Samuel such that the emitted polarized
light passes through the polarizer as recited in claim 1.
3. Issue 3
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s findings
or conclusion of obviousness as to claims 5, 6, and 8. Rather, the Appellant
argues that Kawase fails to overcome the deficiencies of Samuel and May in
the rejection of claim 1. Br. 11.
For the reasons set forth above, the Appellant has failed to show that
the Examiner reversibly erred in concluding that the combined teachings of
Samuel and May render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore,
10
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

there are no deficiencies in Samuel or May that must be overcome by
Kawase in the rejection of claim 1.
4. Issue 4
The Appellant does not point to any error in the Examiner’s findings
or conclusion of obviousness as to claims 14-17. Rather, the Appellant
argues that Biebuyck fails to overcome the deficiencies of Samuel and May
in the rejection of claim 1. Br. 11.
For the reasons set forth above, the Appellant has failed to show that
the Examiner reversibly erred in concluding that the combined teachings of
Samuel and May render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore,
there are no deficiencies in Samuel or May that must be overcome by
Biebuyck in the rejection of claim 1.
F. DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7, and 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Samuel and May is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Samuel, May, and Kawase is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 14-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Samuel, May, and Biebuyck is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 35 U.S.C. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

11
Appeal 2008-6128
Application 10/694,550

tc

THOMAS H. CLOSE
EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
PATENT LEGAL STAFF
343 STATE STREET
ROCHESTER, NY 14650-2201

12