Ex Parte Hwang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

12953343 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/953,343 11/23/2010
23363 7590 07/01/2016
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Young-In Hwang
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.
65797/Sl437 3321
EXAMINER
TAYLOR JR, DUANE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
pto@lrrc.com
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG-IN HWANG
Appeal2014-008362
Application 12/953,343
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-10. Claim 4 has been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to an organic light emitting display.
Spec., i-f 2. More specifically, the claimed invention is directed to "an
organic light emitting display [that] is capable of reducing variation in power
transmitted to pixels to reduce or prevent non-uniformity of brightness from
being generated." Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
Appeal2014-008362
Application 12/953,343
1. An organic light emitting display comprising:
a pixel comprising a first sub pixel, a second sub
pixel, and a third sub pixel; and
first pixel power source lines for supplying a first
pixel power from a first pixel power source to a transistor
of the first sub pixel, a transistor of the second sub pixel,
and a transistor of the third sub pixel,
wherein the first pixel power source lines coupled
to at least two different color sub pixels of the first, second
and third sub pixels have different widths, and
wherein one of the first pixel power source lines
coupled to a blue sub pixel as the first sub pixel has a
largest width from among the first pixel power source
lines.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US 2005/0093802 Al; May 5, 2005).
Final Act. 3-8. 1
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-10 as unpatentable over Yamazaki.
Appellant contends that Yamazaki fails to render obvious the
limitation of "wherein one of the first pixel power source lines coupled to a
blue sub pixel as the first sub pixel has a largest width from among the first
pixel power source lines." Br. 5-10. Specifically, Appellant asserts that
Yamazaki teaches the power source feed line for the red pixel having the
1 Throughout this opinion, we also refer to ( 1) the Final Action, mailed Dec.
05, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed May 5, 2014 ("Br."); (3)
the Examiner's Answer mailed May 22, 2014 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2014-008362
Application 12/953,343
greatest width (Br. 6, 8) and "fails to provide any apparent reason to modify
the above-discussed embodiment to arrive at the embodiment of claim 1
[, where the power source feed line for the blue pixel has the greatest
width]." Br. 8; see also Br. 11 (presenting similar arguments for claim 8).
Appellant also asserts that the Examiner erred by failing to consider
the Specification that, according to Appellant, "explains that the width of the
first pixel power source line coupled to the blue sub pixel may be increased
to compensate for the current error ratio and voltage drop specific to the blue
sub pixel." Br. 7; see also Br. 9. As such, Appellant maintains that "it is not
a mere design choice and, in fact, is contrary to teachings of Yamazaki and
the originally-file[ d] disclosure." Id.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. As the Examiner points out,
paragraphs 27, 29-32 of Yamazaki teach precisely the same considerations
for choosing the power source line widths with respect to each color as the
present Application, namely to compensate for voltage drop and current
errors. See Final Act. 3, 5-6; Ans. 6. Yamazaki, in particular, describes
The present inventors have attempted to increase the
widths of the detour wirings for those EL elements for which an
increased current is to be supplied. Therefore, the wiring
resistance of the detour wirings decreases for those pixels to
which a large current is to be supplied. As the wiring resistance
decreases, a drop of potential through the detour wirings
decreases, and a large current can be supplied to the EL elements.
In the practical panel, limitation is imposed on space for laying
the detour wirings. By changing the ratio of widths of the detour
wirings for each of the colors, therefore, it is allowed to maintain
a balance in the magnitudes of currents flowing into the EL
elements of each of the colors.
Yamazaki, 29; see also Yamazaki, Abstract ("The widths of the detour
wirings supplying current to the power source feed lines are increased for
3
Appeal2014-008362
Application 12/953,343
those EL elements into which a current of a large density flows. This
constitution decreases the wiring resistances of the detour wirings, decreases
the potential drop through the detour wirings, and suppresses the amount of
electric power consumed by the detour wirings.").
Yamazaki also, like the present invention, teaches varying the width
of each of the power source lines coupled to the red, green, and blue pixels
to achieve a good balance of colors and brightness. See Yamazaki, Abstract,
i-f 31. While Yamazaki does not refer to aperture area specifically, Yamazaki
also recognizes the consideration of available space. See Yamazaki, i-fi-129,
85.
Yamazaki' s disclosure with respect to the power source line coupled
to the red pixel is merely an exemplary embodiment where the power source
line coupled to the red pixel is widest. See, e.g., Yamazaki, i-fi-1 85-87.
Yamazaki's teachings though, based at least on paragraphs 27, 29-32, is not
limited to only making the power source line coupled to the red pixel widest,
but rather a skilled artisan would understand that Yamazaki more generally
teaches that it would be desirable to widen the power source line, i.e. red,
green, or blue wiring, with the highest resistance, i.e. greatest voltage
potential drop. Yamazaki thus renders obvious the recited limitation of
"wherein one of the first pixel power source lines coupled to a blue sub pixel
as the first sub pixel has a largest width from among the first pixel power
source lines." See KSR Int'! Co., 550 U.S. at 421, 127 S.Ct. 1727 ("When
there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
4
Appeal2014-008362
Application 12/953,343
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
claims 1 and 8, as well as claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, and 10, not argued with
particularity, are unpatentable over Yamazaki.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-10 under
§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3 and 5-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5