Ex Parte OHDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201713761022 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation