Ex Parte Koo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 3, 2012

11239005 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAE-BON KOO and UL-HO LEE
____________

Appeal 2010-003381
Application 11/239,005
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 25, 26, 28, 30-38, 57, and 58.
The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-003381
Application 11/239,005
2
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal:
25. A flat panel display, comprising:
a substrate having an emission region and a non-emission
region;
a plurality of thin film transistors arranged on the
substrate;
a passivation layer arranged on the thin film transistors;
a plurality of first conductive lines arranged at the
emission region;
a second conductive line on the substrate;
an organic emission layer and a charge transporting layer
arranged between the first conductive line and the second
conductive line; and
a plurality of third conductive lines arranged on a portion
of the non-emission region, the third conductive lines
comprising two end third conductive lines and at least one
middle third conductive line, each end third conductive line
partially overlapping a corresponding first conductive line, and
each middle third conductive line partially overlapping two
adjacent first conductive lines,
wherein the end third conductive lines and the second
conductive line are electrically coupled with each other at the
non-emission region,
wherein the third conductive lines supply power from the
outside to the second conductive line, and
wherein the organic emission layer and the charge
transporting layer are not in contact with the third conductive
lines.

REJECTIONS
Claims 25, 28, 30-38, 57 and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
2002/0158835 Al ("Kobayashi '835") and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
2002/0033664 Al ("Kobayashi '664").
Appeal 2010-003381
Application 11/239,005
3
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kobayashi '835, Kobayashi '664, and Japanese Patent
Application Pub. No. 2003-123988 ("Takei").

DISCUSSION
Based on the Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 25, 28, 30-38, 57 and 58 on the basis of claim 25.

THIRD CONDUCTIVE LINES SUPPLYING POWER
The issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combined teachings of Kobayashi '835 and Kobayashi '664 would have
suggested that "the third conductive lines supply power from the outside to
the second conductive line," as required by representative claim 25?
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner makes the following findings.
Kobayashi '835 discloses . . . a plurality of third conductive
lines (auxiliary lines) 118 arranged on a portion of the non-
emission region, wherein the third conductive line 118 and the
second conductive line 122 are electrically coupled with each
other, the third conductive lines supply power from outside to
the second conductive line (118 is formed within the second
electrode power supply lines 119 in Fig. 1, para [0054]) . . . .
(Ans. 4.) The Appellants confirm this finding by admitting that "the
auxiliary wiring element 118 of Kobayashi '835 supplies power to the
second electrodes 122 from the second electrode power supply line 119
Appeal 2010-003381
Application 11/239,005
4
(Fig. 1)." (Reply Br. 7.)
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
the combined teachings of Kobayashi '835 and Kobayashi '664 would have
suggested that "the third conductive lines supply power from the outside to
the second conductive line," as required by representative claim 25.

THIRD CONDUCTIVE LINES OVERLAPPING FIRST CONDUCTIVE LINES
The issue before us follows. Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combined teachings of Kobayashi '835 and Kobayashi '664 would have
suggested that "each end third conductive line partially overlapping a
corresponding first conductive line, and each middle third conductive line
partially overlapping two adjacent first conductive lines," as required by
representative claim 25?
The Appellants argue that "[n]either Kobayashi '835 nor Kobayashi
'664 teaches a device that includes a third conductive line that overlaps a
corresponding first conductive line and supplies power from the outside to
the second conductive line." (Reply Br. 6.) "The test for obviousness is not
whether . . . 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 those of ordinary skill in the art." In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). "Non-obviousness cannot be
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In
determining obviousness, furthermore, a reference "must be read, not in
Appeal 2010-003381
Application 11/239,005
5
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole." Id.
Here, as explained regarding the prior issue, Kobayashi '835's third
conductive lines supply power from the outside to its second conductive
line. The Examiner makes the additional finding.
Kobayashi ('644) in same field of endeavor discloses
(Fig. 3 para [0062]-[0067]) an organic display having plurality
of third conductive lines (auxiliary electrode) 7 arranged on a
portion of the non-emission region (over the pixel partition) 6
comprising two end third conducting lines and at least one
middle third conductive line, each end third conductive line
partially overlapping a corresponding first conductive line 2
and each middle third conductive line partially overlapping two
adjacent first conductive lines.
(Ans. 4-5.)
Figure 3 of Kobayashi '644 follows.

The Figure supports the Examiner's latter finding by showing that auxiliary
anode lines 7 partially overlap a plurality of cathode lines 2. We agree with
the Examiner that, when the teachings of the two references were combined,
the result would have had each end third conductive line partially
Appeal 2010-003381
Application 11/239,005
6
overlapping a corresponding first conductive line and each middle third
conductive line partially overlapping two adjacent first conductive lines, as
well as the third conductive lines supplying power from the outside to the
second conductive line.
The Appellants argue that "it is unreasonable to rely upon the
teachings concerning auxiliary anode 7 to modify the auxiliary wiring
element 118 of Kobayashi '835 at least because the auxiliary wiring element
118 of Kobayashi '835 and the auxiliary anode 7 of Kobayashi '664 perform
different functions in their respective devices." (Reply Br. 7.)
"[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review." In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 Fed. Cir. 1983 (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v.
United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Andersen, 391
F.2d 953, 958 (CCPA 1968)); see also In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968
(CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an
ability to combine their specific structures."). "The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art." Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Here, the Examiner does not propose that the features of Kobayashi
'644 be physically incorporated into the structure of Kobayashi '835.
Instead, the Examiner concludes that the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
Appellants' invention. The Appellants' argument overlooks "the relevant
combined teachings of the . . . references." Andersen, 391 F.2d at 958
Appeal 2010-003381
Application 11/239,005
7
(dismissing the argument that a combination would result in an inoperative
structure).
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
the combined teachings of Kobayashi '835 and Kobayashi '664 would have
suggested that "each end third conductive line partially overlapping a
corresponding first conductive line, and each middle third conductive line
partially overlapping two adjacent first conductive lines," as required by
representative claim 25.
Rather than arguing the rejection of claim 26 separately, the
Appellants rely on the aforementioned arguments, which were unpersuasive,
and thus do not establish that the Examiner erred in any of the rejections
under § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 25 and 26 and of claims 28, 30-38,
57, and 58, which fall therewith.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb