Ex Parte Inoue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

13547128 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
13/547,128 07/12/2012 Seiko INOUE 0756-9839 5836
31780 7590 02/15/2018
Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C.
3975 Fair Ridge Drive
Suite 20 North
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
LINGARAJU, NAVIN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2018 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):
ptomail @ riplo .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEIKO INOUE and HIROYUKI MIYAKE
Appeal 2016-006248
Application 13/547,128
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JENNIFER S. BISK, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—10, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was held on February 6, 2018.
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Semiconductor Energy
Laboratory Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006248
Application 13/547,128
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a light-emitting device in which
variation in luminance of pixels is suppressed. Abstract. Claim 1 reads as
follows:
1. (Previously Presented) A light-emitting device comprising:
a first wiring;
a second wiring; and
a pixel comprising:
a transistor;
a first switch;
a second switch;
a third switch;
a fourth switch;
a capacitor; and
a light-emitting element,
wherein the first wiring and a first electrode of the
capacitor are electrically connected to each other through the first
switch,
wherein a second electrode of the capacitor is electrically
connected to a first terminal of the transistor,
wherein the second wiring and a gate of the transistor are
electrically connected to each other through the second switch,
wherein the first electrode of the capacitor and the gate of
the transistor are electrically connected to each other through the
third switch,
wherein the first terminal of the transistor is directly
connected to a first terminal of the fourth switch, and
wherein an anode of the light-emitting element is directly
connected to a second terminal of the fourth switch.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1,3,4, and 6—9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Jeong (US 2006/0077194
2
Appeal 2016-006248
Application 13/547,128
Al; published Apr. 13, 2006) and Chou (US 2006/0028407 Al; published
Feb. 9, 2006).
Claim 2 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jeong, Chou, and Miwa et al. (US
2013/0021228 Al; published Jan. 24, 2013) (“Miwa”).
Claims 5 and 10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Jeong, Chou, and Kimura (US
2007/0126665 Al; published June 7, 2007).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner found Joeng teaches or
suggests ah of the recited limitations except “wherein an anode of the light-
emitting element is directly connected to a second terminal of the fourth
switch,” for which the Examiner relied on Chou. Final Act. 2—A. The
Examiner proposed modifying Jeong’s common anode arrangement of
Figure 8 with the teachings of Chou Figure 4 to move the OLED away from
driving transistor M4 in Jeong so it is driven instead by transistor M5 of
Joeng, creating a common cathode configuration. See id.', see also Ans. 20-
24. The Examiner concluded it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to implement the pixel circuit in Figure 8 of Jeong using a
common-cathode configuration, as suggested by Chou, in order to form
pixel circuits using common cathode arrangements instead of
common anode arrangements, which are more difficult to fabricate. Final
Act. 4.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining the cited
teachings of Jeong and Chou because there is no proper or sufficient reason,
either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available
3
Appeal 2016-006248
Application 13/547,128
to one of ordinary skill in the art, to do so. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue
Jeong teaches a common cathode arrangement in the embodiment of Figure
3, and Jeong teaches how to compensate for threshold voltage variation of
the driving transistor M4 in Figure 3. Id. at 7—8 (citing Jeong | 52).
Appellants argue an artisan of ordinary skill would not have overlooked
Figure 3 in favor of the “more difficult” common anode arrangement of
Figure 8, and then looked to a second reference, Chou, to create a common
cathode configuration from Figure 8. See Reply Br. 1—2.
Appellants further argue Jeong teaches away from the proposed
modification of connecting the cathode of the OLED to Vss and the anode of
the OLED to the bottom terminal of M5, as the Examiner proposed. App.
Br. 8. Appellants also argue the modification would render the invention of
Jeong unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change its principle of
operation. Id.
Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred. In the Answer,
the Examiner did not address Appellants’ concerns regarding the reason for
combining Jeong and Chou, focusing instead on Appellants’ “teaching
away” and “principle of operation” arguments. See Ans. 20-28. Thus, we
find the Examiner looked to Chou to modify Jeong to solve a problem that is
not found in Jeong. Because there is no apparent problem in Jeong in need
of a solution, we find the Examiner’s proffered reasoning evidences
impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Therefore, on this record, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness by providing the requisite articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
4
Appeal 2016-006248
Application 13/547,128
Accordingly, on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 6. Because we
have reversed the obviousness rejection of each independent claim on
appeal, we also reverse the rejection of each dependent claim.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—10.
REVERSED
5