Ex Parte Reusch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

14383506 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/383,506 09/05/2014
31824 7590 08/28/2018
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thilo Reusch
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
090922-0284 (P201 l,l 087) 5460
EXAMINER
NIESZ, JAMIE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2822
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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):
mweipdocket@mwe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THILO REUSCH and DANIEL STEFFEN SETZ
Appeal2017-009712
Application 14/383,506
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of September 5,
2014 (Spec.), Final Office Action of April 7, 2016 (Final Act.), Appeal Brief
of February 1, 2017 (Appeal Br.), Examiner's Answer of May 5, 2017
(Ans.), and Reply Brief of July 5, 2017 (Reply Br.).
Appeal2017-009712
Application 14/383,506
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § I34(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
obvious over Naraoka3• We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to an organic light emitting device including a
translucent substrate, a translucent electrode, an organic functional layer
stack, and a further electrode. See, e.g., claims 1 and 14. The organic
functional layer stack includes at least one organic light-emitting layer with
emitter molecules. Id. The emitter molecules have an anisotropic molecular
structure and are anisotropically oriented with transition dipole moments
oriented in a proportion of more than 66% parallel to the main plane of
extension of the layer. Id. All of the organic light-emitting layers are at a
distance of 2 0 nm - 7 0 nm (claim 1) or 3 0 nm - 60 nm (claim 14) from the
further electrode. Claim 1, with the limitations most at issue highlighted, is
illustrative:
1. Organic light-emitting device, comprising
a translucent substrate, on which a translucent electrode
is arranged,
2 Appellant is the assignee, which is listed as OSRAM Opto Semiconductors
GmbH on the Application Data Sheet entered September 5, 2014. The Brief
states that OS RAM OLED GbmH is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 The Examiner refers to both Naraoka et al., US 2012/028658 Al, published
Nov. 15, 2012 and Naraoka et al., WO 2011/132773 Al, published Oct. 27,
2011. It appears that the Examiner is relying on US 2012/028658 as the
English language equivalent of earlier published WO 2011/132773. The
Examiner's citations appear to be to the U.S. document. We will also cite to
that document.
2
Appeal2017-009712
Application 14/383,506
an organic functional layer stack on the translucent
electrode with organic functional layers comprising at least one
organic light-emitting layer, and
a further electrode thereabove,
wherein the at least one organic light-emitting layer
comprises emitter molecules with an anisotropic molecular
structure, which are anisotropically oriented,
wherein the anisotropically oriented emitter molecules
have transition dipole moments which are oriented in a
proportion of more than 66% parallel to the main plane of
extension of the at least one organic light-emitting layer, and
wherein all the organic light-emitting layers of the
organic light-emitting device are at a distance of greater than
or equal to 20 nm and less than 70 nmfrom the further
electrode.
Appeal Br. 17 ( claims appendix) ( emphasis added).
OPINION
According to Appellant's Specification, organic light-emitting diodes
(OLEDs) outcouple (emit) only part of the light generated by the emitting
layer. Spec. ,r 2. The rest of the light is lost among various loss channels,
for instance, in light guided in the substrate, in a transparent electrode and in
organic layers by wave guidance effects. Id. Light is also lost in surface
plasmons generated in a metallic electrode. Id.
Appellant's invention is directed to increasing light outcoupling in
OLEDs. Spec. ,r 7. Appellant achieves this goal by using emitter molecules
with anisotropic structures and optimizing the distance between the
anisotropic emitter layer and the further electrode. Spec. ,r,r 23-24.
By "anisotropic molecular structure," it is understood "to mean that
the molecules ... do not form a substantially spherical molecular structure,
3
Appeal2017-009712
Application 14/383,506
but instead more of an elongate structure." Spec. ,r 16. These anisotropic
molecules may comprise, for example, two different ligands differing in
terms of their atoms coordinating to a central atom, or comprise a square-
planar central atom environment. Id.
Appellant orients the anisotropic emitter molecules substantially
parallel to the plane of the layers, i.e., so that more than around 66% of the
dipole moments of the molecules are oriented in the layer plane. Spec. ,r 1 7.
This substantially parallel arrangement of the emitter molecules suppresses
light losses caused by plasmon excitations in the further electrode thereby
increasing light output as compared to isotropically and non-directionally
arranged emitter molecules. Spec. ,r 18.
Appellant further places the emitter layers at a distance of 20-70 nm
or 30-60 nm from the further electrode, which enables more efficient light
generation due to microcavity effects. Spec. ,r 23. This further suppresses
plasmon loss channels. Id. The end result is an OLED with small total
thickness compared to known OLEDs. Spec. ,r 24.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-14 as obvious over Naraoka's
description of the OLED device of Figure 7. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner
finds that Naraoka teaches an organic light emitting layer 5 having emitter
molecules with an anisotropic molecular structure, which are anisotropically
oriented in the parallel direction pointing to paragraphs 146-153 ofNaraoka.
Final Act. 3.
The Examiner has not adequately established that Naraoka teaches
forming an OLED having the structure of claims 1 and 14. As pointed out
by Appellant, and not disputed by the Examiner, Naraoka does not
anisotropically orient the luminous ( emitter) molecules in the formed device.
Appeal Br. 12; Ans. 5; Naraoka ,r,r 145-154. Naraoka, instead, merely
4
Appeal2017-009712
Application 14/383,506
performs an analysis (photonic mode density analysis) of the dipole
radiation of parallel oriented luminous molecules and shows the results in
Figure 8. Naraoka ,r 148. Appellant characterizes the analysis as a
calculation, Appeal Br. 12, and the Examiner agrees, Ans. 5. Appellant
contends that the final device that is formed has a "normal" "luminous layer
with randomly (i.e., isotropically) oriented luminous molecules." Appeal
Br. 12. Again, the Examiner does not disagree. Ans. 5.
Naraoka does not disclose that an OLED with parallel luminous
molecules is ever made. Noraoka teaches two mathematical analysis
procedures used to determine the maximum and minimum thicknesses of the
electron transporting zone ( distance between the luminous layers and further
electrode). Naraoka ,r,r 148, 154. One analysis is a dipole density analysis
of the dipole radiation of parallel oriented luminous molecules. Naraoka ,r
148. The other analysis is a dipole density analysis of the dipole radiation of
vertically oriented luminous molecules. Naraoka ,r 154. The Examiner does
not provide evidence or technical reasoning supporting a finding that those
of ordinary skill in the art would have formed an actual OLED device for
use in performing the mathematical analysis of Figure 8.
N araoka optimizes the distance between an isotropic luminous emitter
layer and a further electrode and the range obtained is different from the
claimed range, i.e., a range of 70 nm to 300 nm, as compared to the ranges
of 20-70 nm and 30-60 nm of the claims. But the optimization is for an
OLED with an isotropic luminous layer. Naraoka, thus, does not provide
any guidance to the ordinary artisan for optimizing the distance between an
anisotropic emitter layer and a further electrode.
Appellant has identified a reversible error in the Examiner's rejection.
5
Appeal2017-009712
Application 14/383,506
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6