Sheng Qiang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 2, 2020

14812858 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 2, 2020)

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.
14/812,858 07/29/2015 Sheng Qiang 2014.10.022.MN0 2393
106809 7590 01/02/2020
Docket Clerk - SAMS
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
EXAMINER
BUKOWSKI, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2621
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2020 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):
munckwilson@gmail.com
patent.srad@samsung.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHENG QIANG and AARON JACKSON
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung
Electronics Co., LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858

2
SPECIFICATION
Appellant’s Specification relates to a “low-power written input for an
electronic device.” Spec. ¶ 4. A disclosed method “determin[es] whether a
writing utensil is within a predetermined proximity of [a] display panel
while a display panel of the electronic device is powered off.” Id. ¶ 5. If the
“writing utensil is within the predetermined proximity, [the method]
activat[es] a black screen display mode for the display panel.” Id.
“Additionally, the method . . . activat[es] individual pixels corresponding to
locations where the writing utensil contacted the electronic device to display
a contrasting color.” Id.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 reproduced below (with disputed limitations italicized), is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating an electronic device to display a
user input, the method comprising:
determining whether a writing utensil is within a
predetermined proximity of a display panel of the electronic
device while the display panel of the electronic device is powered
off;
in response to determining that a writing utensil is within
the predetermined proximity, activating a black screen display
mode for the display panel, wherein the black screen display
mode is a low power mode that when activated the display panel
is powered on while pixels in the display panel do not emit light;
and
in response to detecting the writing utensil contacting a
surface of the electronic device while the black screen display
mode is activated, activating individual pixels corresponding to
locations where the writing utensil contacted the electronic
device to emit light.
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858

3
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Tsirkel US 2003/0051182 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
Liu US 2013/0082937 A1 Apr. 4, 2013
Newman US 2013/0111579 A1 May 2, 2013
Tuli US 2016/0301796 A1 Oct. 13, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 5–9, and 13–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Liu and Newman. Final Act. 3.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Newman, and Tsirkel.
Final Act. 4.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Liu, Newman, and Tuli. Final Act. 5.
OPINION
A. Claims 1, 5, 7–9, 13 and 15–17
Appellant argues that claims 1, 5, 7–9 and 15–17 can be considered
together, specifically addressing the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11.
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims.2
1. Not-Emitting-Light Limitation
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest that
“the display panel is powered on while pixels in the display do not emit
light,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 12–19. The Examiner finds that the
combination of Liu and Newman discloses this limitation. Ans. 2–3. In

2 Appellant also argues each claim on appeal should be considered
separately, or at least each claim that is argued separately should be
considered separately. Appeal Br. 27. We do the latter. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(iv).
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858

4
particular, the Examiner finds that Liu discloses a low power state in which
its display 111 is triggered by the proximity of a stylus. Id. Although the
Examiner finds that Liu does not expressly teach the use of a dark
background (Final Act. 3), the Examiner finds that Newman teaches
displaying active pixels (text) as white with a black background. Final Act.
3; Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner finds that black pixels in an OLED display,
like Newman’s background pixels, do not emit light. Ans. 3. In addition,
the Examiner determines that an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine
the teachings of Liu and Newman because Liu teaches that power reduction
is desirable and Newman teaches that power consumption is reduced by
using a black background. Id. at 4.
Appellant disagrees, arguing that Newman’s white-on-black display
emits light and, thus, the cited prior art does not satisfy the not-emitting-light
limitation of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant notes that Newman does not
state that it has a black screen display mode or that the pixels in its display
panel do not emit light while the display panel is on. Id. Appellant asserts
that Newman simply stands for the principle that alternating text and
background colors can save display power, not that pixels in a display would
not emit light. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant does not
dispute the Examiner’s finding that black pixels in an OLED display do not
emit light. Ans. 3; Reply Br, generally. Instead, Appellant merely argues
that Newman does not state that fact. Reply Br. 5. A reference, however,
need not state what is already known to an ordinarily skilled artisan. See
Ex. A, 3 (“An OLED instead turns the pixel off entirely to produce the color
black.”). Therefore, the white text on a black background in Newman’s
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858

5
display means that the pixels in that display with white text emit light, and
the pixels that are part of the black background do not. The latter are the
recited “pixels in the display [that] do not emit light.”
Claim 1 does not require that no pixels emit light, rather it merely
requires that some pixels do not emit light. And Newman’s pixels in its
black background satisfy that requirement. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Liu and Newman teaches the not-emitting-
light limitation of claim 1. Ans. 2–3.
2. Activating Limitation
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest “in
response to detecting the writing utensil contacting a surface of the
electronic device while the black screen display mode is activated, activating
individual pixels corresponding to locations where the writing utensil
contacted the electronic device to emit light,” as recited by claim 1. Appeal
Br. 19.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Liu and Newman teach
the activating limitation of claim 1. Ans. 4–5. As discussed above, the
Examiner finds that Liu discloses a low power state that is triggered by the
presence of a stylus. Also as discussed above, the Examiner finds that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would combine Liu’s lower power state with
Newman’s teaching of using white text on a black background. Further, the
Examiner finds that Liu activates pixels to show handwritten text, and that
with Newman’s white-on-black writing, the white pixels would be activated
when the writing occurs. Id. at 5.
Appellant disagrees, arguing that Liu is silent as to any individual
pixel activation during a black screen display mode. Appeal Br. 20; Reply
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858

6
Br. 7–10. Appellant further argues that Newman does not disclose anything
about pixel behavior during handwritten input. Appeal Br. 21; Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by these arguments. As discussed above, the
Examiner’s finding that black pixels in an OLED do not emit light is
undisputed. Therefore, as the Examiner finds, for the OLED pixels to
change from black to white and emit light, they must be activated. Ans. 4–5.
Accordingly, the writing of the white text on the black background taught by
Newman activates the pixels that turn white, and we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Liu and Newman teaches the activating
limitation. Id.
3. Asserted Teaching Away
Appellant argues that Liu teaches away from the not-emitting-light
limitation of claim 1 because Liu teaches (i) reducing power by not fully
powering the processor (ii) while powering the display. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant argues that these teachings in Liu would discourage an ordinarily
skilled artisan from practicing the claimed invention. Id. We are not
persuaded.
We agree with the Examiner that the mere fact that Liu teaches one
technique for reducing power (i.e., not fully powering the processor) would
not discourage an ordinarily skilled artisan from additionally using another
technique for reducing power (i.e., a black background). Ans. 3–4.
Appellant has not presented any persuasive argument or evidence indicating
that the two techniques are incompatible, and we are not persuaded that the
powering of the display in Liu would discourage the use of a black
background. As indicated above, black pixels in an OLED do not emit light
even when the OLED’s display is powered. Thus, we agree with the
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858

7
Examiner that Liu does not teach away from the claimed invention, and we
sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 5, 7–9, 13 and 15–17, not
separately argued. Appeal Br. 11.
B. Claims 2, 10, 18, 21, and 22
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 2, 10, 18, 21, and
22 as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 23. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 2,
10, 18, 21, and 22.
C. Claims 3, 11, and 19
Appellant acknowledges that claim 3 is representative of the group of
claims 3, 11, and 19. Appeal Br. 23. Thus, we treat claim 3 accordingly.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
“storing the input result without powering on the display panel beyond the
black screen display mode and the activated individual pixels,” as recited by
claim 3. Appeal Br. 24. The Examiner finds that the combination of Liu,
Newman, and Tsirkel teach this limitation. Ans. 5–6. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Liu teaches storing information input into the display.
Newman teaches using a black screen with activated pixels, and Tsirkel
teaches storing data after a time out without user intervention. Id. at 6. The
Examiner determines that these combined findings teach the disputed
limitation. Id.
Appellant argues that neither Newman nor Liu individually teach
saving inputs without powering on the display panel beyond the black screen
mode and the activated individual pixels. Reply Br. 12. That argument,
however, is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner
relies on the combination of Newman and Liu (with Tsirkel) for that
limitation. Ans. 5–6. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
Appeal 2018-006134
Application 14/812,858

8
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 3 and of claims 11 and 19, not
separately argued. Appeal Br. 23.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–22 are affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–9, and
13–17
103 Liu and Newman 1, 5–9, and
13–17

2, 3, 10, 11,
18, 19, 21,
22
103 Liu, Newman, Tsirkel 2, 3, 10,
11, 18, 19,
21, 22

4, 12, 20 103 Liu, Newman, Tuli 4, 12, 20
Overall 1–5, 7–13,
15–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Notice of References Cited

Application/Control No.
14/812,858
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination

Examiner

Art Unit

Page 1 of 1

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Name

Classification
1 A US- 1 1
B US-
C US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY

Country

Name

Classification
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

U

Exhibit A

V

W

X

*A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.
Delete Last PageAdd A Page
TELEVISION
Why Is OLED Different and What
Makes It So Great?
Andrew Tarantola
11/06/14 11:05AM • Filed to: GIZ EXPLAINS 155.4K 112 9
We come from the future
LATEST REVIEWS SCIENCE IO9 FIELD GUIDE EARTHER DESIGN PALEOFUTURE
Share Tweet
Page 1 of 5Why Is OLED Different and What Makes It So Great?
12/11/2019https://gizmodo.com/why-is-oled-different-and-what-makes-it-so-great-1654102034
I have seen the future of high definition displays and lo, it is glorious. Not to mention rollable,
foldable, and clearly superior to LCD/LED—really every other panel technology available today.
What is OLED and how does it work?
OLED, or Organic Light Emitting Diodes, are an offshoot of existing conventional LED
technology. LEDs are semiconducting light sources that function through
electroluminescence—that is, they produce photons (aka light) by plopping electrons into little
electron holes within the device's emissive layer. Basically, electricity goes in and light comes
out thanks to a semiconductuctive material, rather than a white-hot metal filament like an old-
school lightbulb.
OLED technology, first successfully implemented in 1987 by Kodak researchers Ching W. Tang
and Steven Van Slyke, takes this same idea as LED, but flattens it. Rather than an array of
individual LED bulbs, OLED uses a series of thin, light emitting films. This allows the OLED
array to produce brighter light while using less energy than existing LCD/LED technologies.
And since these light-emitting films are composed of hydrocarbon chains, rather than
semiconductors laden with heavy metals like gallium arsenide phosphide, they get that "O" for
"organic" in their name.
An OLED panel is typically composed of four primary layers: The substrate, which acts as the
structural framework; the anode, which draws electrons; the cathode, which provides electrons;
and the organic layer between. That organic layer is further divided into a conducting
layer—which provides the "electron holes" that the electrons flowing through layer can snap
into, shedding energy in the process—and an emissive layer where the light is actually produced.
And if you want to start messing with producing actual color, it's just a matter of adding red-,
green-, and blue-tinted plastic layers to the substrate.
There are additional flavors of OLEDs that are better for different kinds of devices. When a
device only needs to display a static pattern with relatively slow refreshes—like the LCD readout
of a calculator or e-ink displays of the Kindle Paperwhite—you can use something called a
passive matrix OLED (or a PMOLED). These work by turning on voltage to specific areas of the
film and leaving them on until the device refreshes its instructions.
Share Tweet
Page 2 of 5Why Is OLED Different and What Makes It So Great?
12/11/2019https://gizmodo.com/why-is-oled-different-and-what-makes-it-so-great-1654102034
Then there's active matrix OLEDs, like the AMOLEDs you might find in a smart phone. These
are for high-definition applications that demand fast refresh rates, such as smartphone screens
or HD televisions. AMOLED displays require a thin film transistor back-plane to actually drive
each of the individual pixels, but this layer is just as flexible as the others, allowing for the
development of rollable, foldable, transparent display panel prototypes.
A D V E R T I SE M E N T
Why's it so great?
The LEDs in today's LED televisions are actually used only to provide a white back light, which
then shines through a rapidly-refreshing LCD shutter array which tints the emanating light.
OLEDs, on the other hand, operate as both light source and color array simultaneously. This
may not sound like a big difference, but does offer a wide range of benefits including:
Lower power consumption - An OLED display doesn't need any of the electronics and
circuitry used to drive the LED back light and LCD shutter from a LED display, which
makes OLEDs more efficient. LED screens produce black simply by fully closing the pixel
shutter—the back light is still shining (it never actually turns off) but the light itself is
being blocked. An OLED instead turns the pixel off entirely to produce the color black,
saving energy in the process.
Better picture quality - Since OLEDs incorporate their own color filters, they can
produce deeper blacks and a wider gamut array. The lack of a permanently-on backlight
promotes higher contrast ratios (the difference between the brightest and darkest pixels
on the screen). And thanks to the lack of a shutter array, OLED displays can have refresh
rates that are an order magnitude faster than those of LCD/LED sets. We're talking a boost
from 480 Hz to 100,000 Hz—theoretically, at least. On top of that, OLEDs offer an
impressively wide viewing angle—nearing 90 degrees off center for many panels—without
the color and clarity losses seen in traditional LEDs.
Better durability and lighter weight - Ditching the back light and shutter arrays also
means manufacturers can replace the heavier, shatter-prone glass substrates often used in
LED displays with lighter, stronger plastic substrates. And with the advent of injet-based
·
·
·
Share Tweet
Page 3 of 5Why Is OLED Different and What Makes It So Great?
12/11/2019https://gizmodo.com/why-is-oled-different-and-what-makes-it-so-great-1654102034
A D V E R T I SE M E N T
It's not perfect but it's close
OLED technology isn't without its drawbacks and shortcomings. The biggest issue facing OLED
right now is the fact that the material used to produce blue light degrades at a much faster rate
than the other hues, which eventually throws off the color balance and reduces the overall
brightness of the display.
A D V E R T I SE M E N T
This forces manufacturers to compensate by, say, drastically increasing the size of the blue sub-
pixel to as much as double the green and red, or requiring the consumer to continually fiddle
with the calibration. Luckily, a great deal of research has been made into improving the
efficiency and lifespan of blue OLED, culminating in a recent breakthrough that has brought the
hue up to par with its other subpixels.
To be clear, the composition of the display panel—whether it's a CRT, plasma, LED, or
OLED—has very little to do with the resolution of the screen. The terms, HD, 4K, and UltraHD
all refer to the number of pixels the manufacturer can pack into a panel, not what those pixels
printable OLEDs, these light producing compounds can be applied to more exotic and
malleable surfaces. Additionally, the OLED films themselves are quite durable and can
withstand a wider operating temperature range than regular LEDs without failing.
The price is only going down from here - The ability to simply print out OLEDs as
you would a term paper or silk-screened t-shirt holds incredible technological potential.
It's also ludicrously expensive at present—look to spend about triple for an OLED set than
a conventional LCD/LED these days—but once roll-to-roll production capabilities are
scaled up sufficiently, the cost of spitting out an OLED panel should drop below what
we're paying to make current generation LEDs.
·
Share Tweet
Page 4 of 5Why Is OLED Different and What Makes It So Great?
12/11/2019https://gizmodo.com/why-is-oled-different-and-what-makes-it-so-great-1654102034
are made of or how they work. This is why you can find sets like Sony's flagship 4K XBR-
65X950B using LCD/LED panels and 1080p sets like the LG EC 9300 sporting OLED displays.
A D V E R T I SE M E N T
If you're currently in the market for a TV that is both future-proof and offers a superior image,
you're going to be paying through the nose for something like LG's obscenely expensive 4K
OLEDs. Conversely, you could split the difference, depending on how soon you think you'll be
buying your next set, and either opt for a 4K LCD/LED or a 1080p OLED. Just don't waste your
cash on a 1080p LED; that tech is already in the past, replaced by a bright and glorious future.
[OLED Info - Wiki 1, 2 - How Stuff Works - Explain that Stuff - PC Mag - Cornell University]
SHARE THIS STORY
Share Tweet
Page 5 of 5Why Is OLED Different and What Makes It So Great?
12/11/2019https://gizmodo.com/why-is-oled-different-and-what-makes-it-so-great-1654102034