Ex Parte SHIN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

13467737 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 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.
13/467,737 05/09/2012 Aram SHIN 3430-0271 PUS 1 5518
127226 7590 06/26/2017
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
YEUNG, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2694
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARAM SHIN, JUHN-SUK YOO, and SOO-JEONG PARK
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,7371
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose:
An organic light emitting display device [that] includes a substrate
having a plurality of sub-pixels including first, second and third sub­
pixels, the first and second sub-pixels disposed along a first direction
1 Appellants identify LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
and the third sub-pixel disposed adjacent to the first and second sub­
pixels along a second direction; and a plurality of driving sub-pixels
formed on the substrate, each of the driving sub-pixels including at
least a driving transistor and a switching unit, wherein each of the
driving sub-pixels corresponds to at least two sub-pixels among the
plurality of sub-pixels.
Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 2, and 6, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. An organic light emitting display device, comprising:
a plurality of color sub-pixels formed on a substrate and
including first, second and third color sub-pixels,
each of the color sub-pixels including a light emitting diode
configured to generate light,
the first and second color sub-pixels disposed along a first
direction, and the third color sub-pixel disposed adjacent to the
first and second color sub-pixels along a second direction
different from the first direction; and
a plurality of driving sub-pixels formed on the substrate and
configured to drive the light emitting diodes of the color sub­
pixels,
each of the driving sub-pixels including at least a driving
transistor and a switching unit,
each and every one of the driving sub-pixels overlapping with
at least two color subpixels among the plurality of color sub­
pixels,
wherein the first, second and third color sub-pixels correspond
to a portion offour of the driving sub-pixels.
2. The device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of
driving sub-pixels include a first driving sub-pixel covering a
predetermined display area,
2
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
portions of the first and second color sub-pixels covering the
same predetermined display area, and
the driving transistor in the first driving sub-pixel is electrically
connected to and drives a light emitting diode formed in at least
one the second and third color sub-pixels.
6. The device according to claim 1, wherein the driving
transistor in each of the plurality of driving sub-pixels is
electrically connected to the light emitting diode provided in
one of the plurality of color sub-pixels through a contact hole,
and all the contact holes associated with the driving transistors
form a line.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1—4 and 7—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2
as being unpatentable over Ando (US 2012/0097933 Al; published Apr. 26,
2012) and Park (US 2005/0139834 Al; published June 30, 2005). Final Act.
6-13.
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ando, Park, and Sakurai (US 2003/0052597 Al;
published Mar. 20, 2003). Final Act. 13—14
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
2 The Examiner mistakenly cites to 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in the statement of
the rejection of these claims. Final Act. 6; Ans. 2. However, the Examiner
does so immediately after having reproduced pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Final Act. 6. Moreover, Appellants acknowledge that the Examiner’s
rejections fall under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. Thus, this
typographical mistake is harmless.
3
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not
find them persuasive. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7—9, 11, and 12
The organic light emitting display device of claim 1 recites a plurality
of color sub-pixels and a plurality of driving sub-pixels that drive the light
emitting diodes of the color sub-pixels. The claimed driving sub-pixels and
color sub-pixels are configured such that each and every one of the driving
sub-pixels overlapping with at least two color subpixels among the plurality
of color sub-pixels and such that the first, second and third color sub-pixels
correspond to a portion offour of the driving sub-pixels.
An example of such a configuration is illustrated in the Specification’s
Figure 6, which is reproduced below:
4
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
The Specification’s Figure 6 uses boxes with dashed lines to illustrate
two sets of three color sub-pixels (SPrl, SPgl, SPbl) and (SPr2, SPg2,
SPb2), and boxes with solid lines to illustrate six driving sub-pixels (DSPrl,
DSPgl, DSPbl, DSPr2, DSPg2, DSPb2). Each of the driving sub-pixels
overlaps with at least two color sub-pixels (e.g., DSPgl overlaps with SPrl
and SPgl; DSPg2 overlaps with SPrl, SPbl, SPg2, and SPb2; etc.).
Furthermore, each set of three color sub-pixels correspond or overlap with a
portion of four of the driving sub-pixels (e.g., SPrl, SPgl, and SPB1
correspond or overlap with DSPrl, DSPgl, DSPbl, and DSPg2).
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds that
Ando teaches or suggests a similar color sub-pixel arrangement as the one
Appellants disclose. Final Act. 3, 6 (citing Ando Fig. 9).
Ando’s Figure 9 is reproduced below:
10R 10G
Ando’s Figure 9 illustrates eighteen sub-pixels, with the orientation of
the red and green sub-pixels perpendicular to the orientation of the blue sub­
pixels.
5
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
Although the Examiner finds that Ando teaches driving sub-pixels
(Final Act. 7 (citing Ando Fig. 2)), the Examiner notes “Ando fails to
expressly disclose that each and every one of the driving subpixels
overlapping with at least two color sub-pixels among the plurality of
color sub-pixels, wherein the first, second and third color sub-pixel
corresponds to a portion of four of the driving sub-pixels” (Final Act. 7).
Rather, the Examiner relies on Park’s teaching of “a subpixel arrangement
where the TFT [thin film transistor] driving subpixels are all of the same
size, and the color subpixel[s] are of a different size” to cure the
acknowledged deficiency of Ando. Final Act. 7 (citing Park || 29—30, Fig.
3).
Park’s Figure 3 is reproduced below:
omission direction
Park’s Figure 3 “is a schematic cross-sectional view illustrating a top
emission type organic” light emitting diode. Park 123. “The [driving] sub­
pixel regions ‘spl’, ‘sp2’, and ‘sp3’ . . . have the same size, but the [color]
sub-pixel regions ‘sp4’, ‘sp5’, and ‘sp6’ . . . have different sizes from each
6
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
other.” Id. at 129. Park illustrates a relationship between uniform driving
sub-pixel sizes and varying color sub-pixel sizes in only one dimension.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an artisan
of ordinary skill to combine Ando’s color sub-pixel layout with Park’s
uniform driving sub-pixel teaching, extrapolated to a second dimension such
that rather than merely being uniform in one dimension as illustrated (see
Park Fig. 3), the driving sub-pixels exhibit “regular patterning.” Final Act.
7—8. The Examiner finds that when Ando’s color sub-pixels (as laid out in
Figure 9) overlay driving sub-pixels divided into equal size rectangles (thus,
exhibiting Park’s driving sub-pixel uniformity in two dimensions), the
resulting color and driving sub-pixel overlapping or correspondence exhibits
the same features recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3—5.
The Examiner illustrates the result of such overlaying in Figure 4 of
the Final Rejection, reproduced below:
The Final Rejection’s Figure 4 illustrates two sets from Ando of three
color sub-pixels (labeled R, G, or B) with uniform rectangular driving sub­
pixels overlaying the color sub-pixels. As shown, each of the driving sub-
7
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
pixels overlaps with at least two color sub-pixels and each set of three color-
sub-pixels corresponds or overlaps with four driving sub-pixels.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “[t]here is no teaching
or suggestion in Park to have each and every driving sub-pixel over lapping
[sic] with at least two of [the] first, second and third color sub-pixels, as
recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 9. Appellants note that, with Park’s linear
layout of color sub-pixels the “sub-pixel region spl (for red) is disposed
fully under the corresponding light emitting portion, i.e. [,] sub-pixel region
sp4, in a one-to-one relationship.” Id. (citing Park Fig. 4). Appellants argue
that
if Park’s sub-pixel regions . . . [were] to be split apart and
arranged under the corresponding Red, Green and Blue light
emitting portions of Ando, such a combination would most
likely result arranging Park’s sub-pixel regions in a “delta”
arrangement that matches the corresponding “delta”
arrangement of Ando’s Red, Green and Blue light emitting
portions, since Park is only concerned with arranging sub-pixel
regions . . . in a straight line having a one-to-one relationship
for each driving sub-pixel region and its corresponding LED
sub-pixel region....
App. Br. 9.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. As Appellants acknowledge,
“Ando remains silent as to how the pixel drive circuit 140 is arranged under
each of the corresponding red, green and blue organic EL [electro
luminescence] elements.” App. Br. 9 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s
findings show that it was known in the art to configure drive circuits (i.e.,
drive sub-pixels) to have uniform dimensions that may overlap with multiple
color sub-pixels. Final Act. 7 (citing Park Fig. 3, Tfl[ 29—30). The Examiner
persuasively explains how configuring drive sub-pixels to have uniform
8
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
dimensions when the driven color sub-pixels are arranged non-uniformly in
the manner depicted in Ando’s Figure 9 readily leads to the claimed
relationship among color and driving sub-pixels. Final Act. 3—5.
We do not find persuasive Appellants’ arguments that one of Park’s
driving sub-pixels overlaps with only one color sub-pixel in Park’s
arrangement (App. Br. 9) and that duplicating Park’s color sub-pixels results
in a 1 x6 matrix of sub-pixels that would not exhibit the claimed results
(Reply Br. 5). The Examiner’s findings are based on the combined
teachings of Ando (which illustrates color sub-pixels arranged in a pattern
with two color sub-pixels oriented perpendicular to a third color sub-pixel)
and Park (which illustrates driving sub-pixels that are uniform in at least
one-dimension). Appellants cannot show error in the Examiner’s reliance on
the combined teachings of Ando and Park merely by arguing that Park in
isolation is deficient.
We also do not find persuasive Appellants’ contention that:
the most logical combination of Ando and Park would result in
the pixel drive circuits 140 having the same size . . . set. . .
equal to or smaller than the smallest LED (red or green) so the
pixel drive circuits 140 fit fully under their corresponding LED,
such that the pixel drive circuits 140 and the LEDs have a one-
to-one relationship.
App. Br. 14. Not only do Appellants fail to support this conclusory assertion
with persuasive evidence, but Park undermines Appellants’ assertion as to
what is “most logical” with an illustration of driving sub-pixels having equal
widths significantly wider than the width of the smallest color sub-pixel.
Park Fig. 3.
Appellants also argue that combining Ando and Park in the manner
proffered by the Examiner “would change the principle of operation of Ando
9
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
because the pixels in each row would no longer be driven at the same time,
rather the driving timing for the sub-pixels would be all mixed up.” Reply
Br. 5. However, Appellants do not cite to persuasive evidence to support
their characterization of Ando’s principle of operation.
Appellants also fail to show persuasively that “the Examiner’s
creative combination can only be based on improper hindsight based on
information gleaned solely from Applicants’ own disclosure.” Reply Br. 5.
That the Examiner’s depiction of the color sub-pixel arrangement of Ando’s
Figure 9, when overlaid with uniform rectangular driving sub-pixels, is
similar to Appellants’ illustration of the claimed invention, is insufficient to
show improper hindsight. See Ans. 8. As the Examiner correctly notes, “a
finite number of possible solutions for overlap exists in increasing the
number of OLEDs or increasing the number of driving sub-pixels that would
yield the predictable result of their respective overlapping structure.” Id. at
14. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to drive color sub-pixels arranged in the manner
depicted in Ando’s Figure 9 using rectangular, uniform driving sub-pixels
such that: (1) “each and every one of the driving sub-pixels overlapping
with at least two color subpixels among the plurality of color sub-pixels”
and (2) “wherein the first, second and third color sub-pixels correspond to a
portion of four of the driving sub-pixels,” in the manner recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and 3, 4, 7—9, 11, and 12, which Appellants do not argue
separately.
10
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
Claim 2
Ando teaches the use of a driving transistor Trl to drive a
corresponding subpixel. Final Act. 8 (citing Ando Fig. 2). In rejecting
claim 2, the Examiner concludes that Ando’s use of driving transistor Trl in
this manner makes obvious—given the color and driving sub-pixels
relationship taught or suggested by Ando and Park—having a first driving
sub-pixel covering a predetermined display area, portions of the first and
second color sub-pixels covering the same predetermined display area, and
the driving transistor in the first driving sub-pixel is electrically connected
to and drives a light emitting diode formed in at least one of the second and
third color sub-pixels. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 11.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Ando remains silent
as to where driving transistor Trl actually resides, the most logical
conclusion would be that Ando’s driving transistor Trl resides directly
under the corresponding LED which it is driving (10R, 10G or 10B).” App.
Br. 10. We are nonplussed by Appellants’ argument.
The disputed recitations relate to “a first driving sub-pixel covering a
predetermined display area” where “portions of the first and second color
sub-pixels cover[] the same predetermined display area” (i.e., where the first
driving sub-pixel overlaps with the second color sub-pixel). The disputed
recitations further relate to “the driving transistor in the first driving sub­
pixel is electrically connected to and drives a light emitting diode formed in
at least one [of] the second and third color sub-pixels” (emphasis added).
That is, the disputed recitations encompass a light emitting diode (a second
color sub-pixel) that is electrically connected to and driven by a driving sub­
pixel’s driving transistor that resides directly under the light emitting diode
11
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
(where portions of the color sub-pixel cover the same predetermined display
area of the driving sub-pixel). Appellants’ argument that the invention of
claim 2 is distinguishable because the Specification illustrates where “the
driving transistor that powers the blue color sub-pixel SPb2 is disposed
under the red and green color sub-pixels SPr2 and SPg2” (App. Br. 10) is
incommensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, which
encompasses a driving transistor overlapping with the “at least one [of] the
second and third color sub-pixels.” Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Ando and Park teaches or suggests the disputed
recitations of claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 2.
Claims 5 and 6
Claim 6 recites the use of contact holes formed in a line that
electrically connect light emitting diodes of color sub-pixels with driving
transistors of driving sub-pixels. The Examiner acknowledges that “Ando
fails to expressly disclose” the disputed recitation, but instead relies on
Sakurai’s use of vias (contact holes 231 and 232) to make electrical
connections to teach or suggest using contact holes in the manner claimed
“so that distance parts of [a] circuit that do[] not have a short direct
connection the same layer can be connected.” Final Act. 14.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the Examiner “does
not provide proper motivation for combining Sakurai with Ando.” App. Br.
16. However, the Examiner’s findings show that the use of contact holes to
form electrical connections would have been known to an artisan of ordinary
12
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
skill. See Ans. 15. The Examiner’s preferred reason for combining Sakurai
with Ando (and Park) is reasonable.
Appellants further argue that “modifying Ando’s ‘delta’ sub-pixel
arrangement... to have the ‘stripe’ sub-pixel arrangement as in Sakurai
would destroy the principle of operation” of Ando. App. Br. 16; see also
Reply Br. 8. However, the Examiner relies on Sakurai to teach or suggest
the use of contact holes, not to teach or suggest a particular arrangement of
sub-pixels. For an arrangement of color and driving sub-pixels falling
within the scope of the claimed invention, the Examiner relies on the
teachings and suggestions of Ando and Park. Final Act. 6—8. Thus,
Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings, and is
therefore not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 6, and claim 5, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br.
16-17.
Claims 10, 13, and 14
Although claims 10, 13, and 14 recite additional recitations directed to
features of overlapping color and driving sub-pixels, the issues raised by
Appellants’ arguments with respect to these recitations ultimately hinge on
same issues raised by Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 1.
With respect to claim 10, Appellants argue “Park only teaches that a
driving sub-pixel region can slightly overlap with two light emitting sub­
pixel regions.” App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 7.
With respect to claim 13, Appellants argue “Ando merely teaches red,
green and blue LEDs that are arranged in a delta arrangement, and Park
merely teaches driving circuitry sub-pixels regions for corresponding red,
13
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
green and blue LEDs that are arranged in a straight line” (App. Br. at 13),
that the combination of Ando and Park would result in only “a one-to-one
relationship between Park’s sub-pixel regions . . . and Ando’s red, green and
blue LEDs” {id.), and that “there is no teaching or suggestion in Park to
arrange the majority of one of the sub-pixel regions . . . under an LED that it
is not driving” {id.). Appellants also argue “there is no teaching or
suggestion in Ando or Park to provide the many-to-many relationships
recited in claim 13” {id at 14) because “the most logical combination of
Ando and Park would result in the pixel drive circuits 140 .. . equal to or
smaller than the smallest LED” {id.). However, we explicitly addressed this
argument in discussion of claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 14, Appellants argue “Park is only concerned
with a group of three driving sub-pixels and their corresponding three LEDs
which are arranged in a one-to-one manner. Park is not concerned with the
manv-to-manv relationships between driving sub-pixels and color sub-pixels
as recited in claim 14.” Id. at 15; see also Reply Br. 7.
Appellants’ contentions with respect to claims 10, 13, and 14 do not
raise additional issues, and thus, are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed
above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 10, 13, and 14.
14
Appeal 2016-006829
Application 13/467,737
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
15