Ex Parte Koo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 20, 2012

11239006 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 20, 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 2010-003690
Application 11/239,006
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 25-27, 29, 32-34, 37-41, and 58.
The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-003690
Application 11/239,006
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 first conductive lines arranged in the
emission region;
a second conductive line arranged in the emission region
and the non-emission region;
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 the
substrate, 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 in 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, 26, 29, 32-34, 37-41, 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 2010-003690
Application 11/239,006
3
Claims 27 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, 26, 29, 32-34, 37-41, and 58 on the basis of claim 25. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We will decide the appeal of claim 27
individually.

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 the substrate, wherein the
third conductive line 118 and the second conductive line 122
are electrically coupled with each other in the non-emission
region, the third conductive line supplies power from outside to
the second conductive line (118 is formed within the second
electrode power supply lines 119 in Fig. 1, para [0054]) . . . .
Appeal 2010-003690
Application 11/239,006
4
(Ans. 4.) Appeal 2010-003381 involves the same Appellants, assignee, and
attorney. In Appeal 2010-003381, the Appellants confirmed the Examiner's
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 (Fig. 1)." (Appeal 2010-003381, Reply Br. 7.)
In the instant appeal, the Appellants argue that "Kobayashi '664 fails
to disclose or suggest that auxiliary anode 7 supplies power from the
outside." (Reply Br. 5.)
"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) (citations omitted). "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 isolation, but for
what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole." Id.
Here, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Kobayashi
'835 and Kobayashi '664 to reject the limitations at issue. As mentioned
supra, the Examiner finds that Kobayashi '835 teaches the third conductive
lines supply power from the outside to the second conductive line.
Consequently, the Appellants' individual attack on Kobayashi '664 cannot
establish non-obviousness.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
the combined teachings of Kobayashi '835 and Kobayashi '664 would have
Appeal 2010-003690
Application 11/239,006
5
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 Examiner relies on the combined teaching of Kobayashi '835 and
Kobayashi '664 to reject the limitations at issue. 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.)
Appeal 2010-003690
Application 11/239,006
6
Figure 3 of Kobayashi '644 follows.

Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view showing the structure of an organic EL
device according to Embodiment 4

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
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.
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.
Appeal 2010-003690
Application 11/239,006
7
Rather than arguing the rejection of claim 27 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 27 and that of claims 26, 29,
32-34, 37-41 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

llw