Ex Parte OH

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

13761022 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)

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.
13/761,022 02/06/2013 Jae-Young OH SDCSHN.242AUS 1069
20995 7590 03/23/2017
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
LUBIT, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2017 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAE-YOUNG OH
Appeal 2016-007897
Application 13/761,0221
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 7—13, all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Samsung Display Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 4, 2016, “App. Br.”), the Reply
Brief (filed August 18, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
June 21, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed August 4, 2015, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed February 6, 2013, “Spec.”) for their
Appeal 2016-007897
Application 13/761,022
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display
device. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1 and 7 are independent. An understanding of the invention
can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. An organic light emitting diode display device,
comprising:
a pixel unit having a plurality of pixels positioned at the
intersections of scan lines and data lines;
a scan driver configured to supply a scan signal to the
scan lines;
a data driver configured to supply a data signal to the
data lines;
a data compensator configured to determine a hysteresis
compensation value by comparing a present and a previous data
signal, and to output a data compensation value based on the
hysteresis compensation value and a luminance/color
coordinate compensation value; and
a timing controller configured to supply a control signal
to the scan driver, the data driver, and the data compensator,
and to control providing the data driver with the compensation
data value supplied from the data compensator,
wherein the data compensator generates the data
compensation value thereby adjusting a driving current of each
pixel according to the data compensation value, and
respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-007897
Application 13/761,022
the luminance/color coordinate compensation value
corresponds to luminance and color coordinate characteristics
of the pixel unit.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Kawabe, et al, US 2002/0024481 A1
Kim, et al., US 2008/0136767 Al
Otani, et al., US 8,552,962 B2
Murakami, et al., US 2011/0267383 Al
Feb. 28, 2002
June 12, 2008
Filed Aug. 29, 2011
Nov. 3,2011
1. Claims 1—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (1st |), as failing to
comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 4—6.
2. Claims 1—3, 5—8, and 10-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kim and Otani. Final Act. 6—16.
3. Claims 4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Otani, Murakami, and Kawabe. Final Act.
16-20.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—13 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6—10.
Claims 1-13: Enablement
3
Appeal 2016-007897
Application 13/761,022
The independent claims recite a “luminance/color coordinate
compensation value.” The Examiner finds Appellant’s Specification
discloses the determination of the compensation value is partially based on
the threshold or mobility features of a driving transistor, but that the
Specification fails to disclose upon what else that value may be dependent.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends the Specification is enabling by disclosing the
claimed value is one that is routinely determined during the manufacturing
process. App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. 132). Appellant argues the claims are not
directed to a method for determining a “luminance/color coordinate
compensation value,” but are directed to a device and method that used that
value. Id. at 7. Appellant argues the claimed value is one that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would measure. Id. at 8.
The Examiner finds the factor that governs the production of a
“luminance/color coordinate compensation value” is insufficiently described
to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the claimed
invention. Ans. 2—3.
We agree with Appellant that measurement of a value does not require
an understanding of all the factors that may undergird its production.
Claims 1-13: Obviousness over Kim, Otani, Murakami, and Kawabe
Appellant contends Kim is silent as to a “luminance/color coordinate
compensation value.” App. Br. 9. Appellant argues Kim relates to changing
the phase of a clock whose signal varies dependent upon temperature. Id.
Appellant argues that neither of Otani, Murakami, nor Kawabe compensate
for Kim. Id.
4
Appeal 2016-007897
Application 13/761,022
The Examiner finds Kim does not recite a “luminance/color
coordinate compensation value,” but that Kim equivalently teaches the
claimed value. Id. The Examiner finds Kim teaches various image signals
are stored and used for comparison and the timing of their storage is
controlled by the phase of a clock signal. Id. at 7—8. The Examiner finds
Kim teaches the clock phase is shifted dependent upon temperature and that
image comparison, corrected for temperature, corresponds to the claimed
“luminance/color coordinate compensation value.” Id.
Appellant replies that Kim is wholly silent as to a “luminance/color
coordinate compensation value.” We agree. The cited portions of Kim fail
of any disclosure of “color.” The Examiner’s prima facie case relies on an
equivalence of color and temperature which the Examiner fails to make
explicit. To facilitate review, the obviousness analysis must be made
explicit. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (Citations
omitted)).
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
5