Ex Parte Forrest et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

13890486 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/890,486 05/09/2013
126542 7590 07/27/2018
Riverside Law LLP/Universal Display Corporation
Glenhardie Corporate, Center Glenhardie Two
1285 Drummers Lane, Suite 202
Wayne, PA 19087
Stephen R. Forrest
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.
206157-0027-06-US.604849 8152
EXAMINER
TUROCY, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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 STEPHEN R. FORREST and MAX SHTEIN
Appeal2017-009591
Application 13/890,486
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
RAEL YNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter "Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-12,
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, "The Trustees of Princeton University,"
which, according to the Brief, is the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed
March 22, 2017 (hereinafter "Appeal Br.") 3). The Inventors state, however,
that the "invention was made with Government support under Contract No.
F49620-92-J- 0424 awarded by the U.S. Air Force OSR (Office of Scientific
Research) and Contract No. DAAD19-02- 2-00198 awarded by the Army
Research Lab" and that the Unites States of America has certain rights in the
invention (Specification filed May 9, 2013 (hereinafter "Spec.") ,r 2). In
addition, the Inventors state that the invention "was made by, on behalf of,
and/or in connection with" a joint-university-corporation research agreement
involving not only Princeton University but also the University of Southern
California and Universal Display Corporation (id. ,r 3).
Appeal2017-009591
Application 13/890,486
15, and 16. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for depositing an
organic material on a substrate-in particular, for depositing an organic
compound used as an active material in a variety of applications including
organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs), organic phototransistors, organic
photovoltaic cells, organic photodetectors, and thin films (Spec. ,r,r 4--6).
Figure 1, reproduced below from the Drawings filed May 9, 2013, is
illustrative:
105
190
155
171)
Figure I
2 Appeal Br. 6-16; Reply Brief filed July 5, 2017 (hereinafter "Reply Br.")
4--7; Non-Final Office Action entered October 21, 2016 (hereinafter "Non-
Final Act.") 2-11; Examiner's Answer entered May 5, 2017 (hereinafter
"Ans.") 2-15.
2
Appeal2017-009591
Application 13/890,486
Figure 1 above depicts an organic vapor jet printing (OVJP) apparatus that
may be used to practice the invention, wherein the apparatus is shown as a
device 100 including a first organic source cell 110, a second organic source
cell 120, a dilution channel 130, a mixing chamber 140, a nozzle 150, and
heating elements 160 (Spec. ,r,r 22, 49, 54). The Specification describes the
operation as including a step of flowing carrier gas from carrier gas
source(s) 105 through the organic source cells 110, 120 and the dilution
channel 130, whereby mixing occurs in the mixing chamber 140 and then
the organic material( s) and carrier gas are expelled through the nozzle 150
towards substrate 170 (id. ,r 54). Figure 23 (not reproduced here) appears to
show a guard flow source 240 for providing an annular guard flow around
the flow of carrier gas carrying organic material (id. ,r 56).
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to the
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 18), with key limitations emphasized, as follows:
1. A method of depositing an organic material, comprising:
ejecting a carrier gas carrying an organic material from a
first exhaust aperture of a nozzle at a flow velocity that is at least
10% of the thermal velocity of the carrier gas,
providing a guard flow gas from an annular exhaust
aperture that surrounds the first exhaust aperture of the nozzle,
such that the guard flow gas surrounds the carrier gas carrying
an organic material; and
forming a layer of organic material on a substrate, the layer
comprising a plurality of separate films;
wherein a dynamic pressure in a region between the nozzle
and the substrate surrounding the carrier gas is at least 1 Torr,
and
3 In Figure 2, some reference numerals are not clearly associated with any
illustrated element.
3
Appeal2017-009591
Application 13/890,486
wherein at least one of the nozzle diameter, the nozzle
length, and the nozzle-to-substrate separation is about equal to
the gas mean free path length.
II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, the Examiner maintains several rejections, listed as
follows:
A. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-
AIA) as unpatentable over Schmitt, 4 Stickney et al. 5
(hereinafter "Stickney"), and Hochberg et al. 6 (hereinafter
"Hochberg");
B. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schmitt, Hochberg, and Patten et al. 7
(hereinafter "Patten");
C. Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schmitt, Stickney or Patten, Hochberg, and Kirk-Othmer
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 8 (hereinafter "Kirk-
Othmer");
D. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, and 16 under the judicially-created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 1-14 of United States Patent 8,535,759 B2, issued
4 US 4,788,082, issued November 29, 1988.
5 R.E. Stickney et al., "Angular Distribution of Flow from Orifices and
Tubes at High Knudsen Numbers," 4 J. Vacuum Sci. & Tech. 10-18 (1967).
6 US 4,019,188, issued April 19, 1977.
7 US 4,305,801, issued December 15, 1981.
8 "Vacuum Technology," Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology 1-29 (publication date not indicated on the document).
4
Appeal2017-009591
Application 13/890,486
September 17, 2013; and
E. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, and 16 under the judicially-created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable
over claims 1-27 of United States Patent 7,744,957 B2, issued
June 29, 2010.
(Ans. 2-15; Non-Final Act. 2-11.)
III. DISCUSSION
Rejections D & E (Double Patenting). As the Examiner notes (Ans.
14--15), the Appellant does not present any arguments against these
rejections in its opening brief (Appeal Br. 8-16). Therefore, we summarily
affirm Rejections D and E. Cf Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.
Cir. 2008) ("In the event of ... a waiver, the PTO may affirm the rejection
of the group of claims that the examiner rejected on that ground without
considering the merits of those rejections.").
Rejections A--C (Obviousness). Although the Appellant presents its
arguments against Rejections A through C under multiple headings and sub-
headings identified by various claim(s), the arguments distill down to a
single issue-i.e., whether the Examiner's rejection fails to articulate a
sufficient reason for combining Schmitt with Hochberg on the basis that
implementing Hochberg's guard gas flow feature in Schmitt's method would
render Schmitt unsuitable for its intended purpose (Appeal Br. 6-15). 9 For
9 Because the Appellant does not argue any claim separately pursuant to 3 7
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we confine our discussion to representative claim
1. As provided by this rule, all other claims on appeal stand or fall with
claim 1. Additionally, absent special circumstances, arguments not made in
the Appeal Brief (e.g., whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
5
Appeal2017-009591
Application 13/890,486
the reasons well-stated by the Examiner and those set forth below, we find
no persuasive merit in the Appellant's argument. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Schmitt describes a method for depositing a chemical species ( e.g.,
organic materials) in vapor phase on a substrate by admixing small
concentrations of the species into a high speed jet of an inert carrier gas that
impinges on the substrate's surface where condensation occurs (Schmitt
Abstract). According to Schmitt, "this transport technique allows the
chemical and/or physical phenomena utilized in the depositing species
synthesis step to be isolated from the actual condensation reaction" and,
"[c]onsequently, the conditions governing each of these reactions can be
varied independently to optimize both steps" (id.). As the Examiner
succinctly points out (Ans. 9), Schmitt teaches a preferred embodiment in
which "[t]he nozzle ... and the substrate ... may move relative to one
another in order to change the area of the substrate's ... surface which is
directly under the nozzle ... and thereby coat a larger portion of that
surface" (id. at col. 2, 11. 16-44; emphasis added). Thus, consistent with the
Examiner's position (Ans. 9), the Appellant fails to direct us to evidence
indicating that coating smaller or focused areas would be outside Schmitt's
scope and content.
But even if Schmitt's disclosure is limited to coating large areas of the
substrate's surface, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have
been dissuaded from combining Schmitt and Hochberg in the manner
have combined Schmitt with Stickney in the manner claimed as explained in
the Answer (Ans. 2--4) are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). See, e.g., In
re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
6
Appeal2017-009591
Application 13/890,486
claimed by the Appellant. Specifically, Hochberg teaches providing a guard
flow of clean air 94 encircling an aerosol ink jet stream 28 that exits a nozzle
orifice 24 and is used to deposit material onto a substrate (printing medium
30) in order to maintain clean air around the jet in the vicinity of the nozzle
orifice 24 (Hochberg col. 7, 11. 11-26; Fig. 1 ). Therefore, a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to implement Hochberg' s
guard flow air system in Schmitt in order to maintain clear air around the jet
stream at least in the vicinity of the nozzle orifice. In this regard, the
Inventors explain that a "guard flow may be desirable even in a pressure
controlled environment such as a vacuum chamber, to mitigate the effect of
any impurities that may be present" (Spec. ,r 53), and Hochberg's reason for
including guard flow is consistent with the Inventors' stated purpose.
For these reasons and those given by the Examiner, we sustain
Rejections A through C.
IV. SUMMARY
Rejections A through E are sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, and 16 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).
AFFIRMED
7