Ex Parte Braun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 10, 201612375875 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/375,875 08/12/2009 27799 7590 06/14/2016 Cozen O'Connor 277 Park A venue, 20th floor NEW YORK, NY 10172 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hans Braun 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. 5367-459PUS 1586 EXAMINER SHAH,SAMIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1787 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/14/2016 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): patentsecretary@cozen.com patentdocket@cozen.com patentsorter@cozen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS BRAUN, MARKUS KLEIN, KLAUS MEYER, RALPH PATZOLD, HEINZ PUDLEINER, WIEBKE SARFERT, and FLORIAN SCHINDLER1 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 Technology Center 1700 Before PETER F. KRATZ, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 2 1 Appellants identify the real parties in interest as OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH and Bayer Material Science AG. 2 In our opinion below, we refer to the Final Action mailed February 5, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed July 7, 2014 ("App. Br."), and the Examiner's Answer mailed August 14, 2014 ("Ans."). Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 3. 5-9, 14--25, and 27-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Invention The claims are directed to a radiation-emitting component. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A component comprising: an organic radiation-emitting element having an organic layer formed for generating radiation; a radiation coupling-out side for emitting the radiation; and a scattering film arranged on the radiation coupling-out side of the element and being connected to the element, wherein the scattering film comprises a film matrix admixed with scattering particles, wherein the film matrix contains a plastic that is transmissive to the radiation generated in the element, and wherein the plastic is polycarbonate. Lynam Hiraishi et al. ("Hiraishi") Watanabe et al. ("Watanabe") Cooper et al. ("Cooper") Schultz Chou The References us 5,115,346 US 2003/0002153 Al US 2005/0113505 Al US 2006/0003239 Al US 2009/0314284 Al WO 02/37580 Al 2 May 19, 1992 May 26, 2005 Jan. 5,2006 Dec. 24, 2009 May 10, 2002 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14--18, 24, 25, 27, and 30 over Chou in view of Cooper, and further in view of evidence given in Schultz; claim 7 over Chou in view of Cooper, and further in view of Watanabe; claims 19, 20, 22, and 23 over Chou in view of Cooper, and further in view of Hiraishi; claim 21 over Chou in view of Cooper and Hiraishi, and further in view of Lynam; and claims 28 and 29 over Chou in view of Cooper. OPINION Claims 1 requires "a scattering film arranged on the radiation coupling-out side of the element and being connected to the element, wherein the scattering film comprises a film matrix admixed with scattering particles, wherein the film matrix contains a plastic that is transmissive to the radiation generated in the element, and wherein the plastic is polycarbonate." App. Br. A-1. The only other independent claim, claim 28, comprises the same elements as claim 1 and requires in addition "wherein the scattering particles comprise organic particles." Id. at A-4. All of the rejections in this case rest, at least initially, on whether the Examiner properly combines the teachings of Chou and Cooper to meet the "scattering film" elements of the independent claims. According to the Examiner, Chou discloses: displays, i.e. a component, compnsmg orgamc electroluminescent devices, i.e. radiation element . . having organic emitter layer ... , layer 310, i.e. radiation coupling-out side for emitting the radiation, (figure 3a), ... , a volume diffuser, i.e. scattering film (330, figure 3a, ... ) arranged on the radiation coupling-out side of the element and being connected to the 3 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 element (figure 3a) scattering film comprises a binder, i.e. a film matrix, admixed with scattering particles .... 310 ¥ Fig. 3a s1a Figure 3a of Chou and Final Act. 2. Cooper, again according to the Examiner, discloses "display device having scattering film wherein the scattering film comprises polycarbonate and scattering particles ... in order to control degree and type of scattering." Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use the scattering film of Cooper in the element of Chou to control the degree and type of scattering. Id. at 3. As elaborated below, we find no reversible error in the Examiner combination of the teachings of Chou and Cooper. Rejection of claims 1-3; 5; 6; 8; 9; 14--18; 24; 25; 27; and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chou in view of Cooper with evidence from Schultz Appellants argue these claims as a group, therefore they stand or fall together. We select claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 CPR§ 41.37( c )(1)(iv)(2013). Appellants present two arguments against the Examiner's combination of Chou and Cooper. Appellants first contend there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Chou and Cooper. App. Br. 10. Secondly, Appellants urge that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have any reasonable expectation of success in combining Chou's and 4 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 Cooper's teachings regarding the material used to form the scattering film. Id. Regarding the issue of reason to combine Chou and Cooper, Appellants state that it would not have been obvious to combine Chou with Cooper because Cooper is "completely silent with respect to a multilayer optical device being connected to the substrate of an OLED device of Chou or to the organic radiation-emitting element of clam 1" and "Chou requires that a display ... having a volume diffuser ... is connected to a substrate ... of an OLED device" App. Br. 10 (emphasis in original). Appellants insist that Cooper merely describes that the multilayer optical device is to be used as a projection display, onto or through which the image is projected, and that "Cooper fails to give a person of ordinary skill in the art any motivation to connect the multilayer optical device to the substrate of an OLED." Id. However, the reason for combining references does not have to be identical to that of the applicant in order to establish obviousness. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996). "As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor." In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992). "One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings." Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, the Examiner finds that, while Cooper has no explicit disclosure of OLEDs, the reference broadly discloses optical display devices (which 5 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 would encompass OLEDs) wherein the display device includes scattering film and scattering particles in the same manner as the primary reference, Chou. Ans. 2. The Examiner explains that Chou and Cooper are both drawn to displays comprising scattering film with scattering particles, i.e., the same field of endeavor. Id. Although the Examiner has not identified precise teachings in Cooper directed to OLEDs, the Examiner's explanation of the reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine the prior art teachings is sufficient because the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ would have led to the use Cooper's material for a scattering film in an optical device as the material in Chou's scattering film in an optical device (i.e., OLED). KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner thus provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants' argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable expectation of success of modifying Chou based on Cooper gamers no more traction than the first argument. See App. Br. 11. Appellants again point to Cooper's silence regarding an OLED device, but for the reasons above, this argument is unpersuasive. Appellants further state that "Cooper lists polycarbonates among a large number of other polymers that may be used in a scattering layer," and contend that further information or undue experimentation is required before one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success using polycarbonate in Chou's composition. Id. The Examiner clarifies that Cooper lists only eight polymers, and maintains that such number is not large or vast, and it is well within the skill 6 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 level of an artisan to do routine experiments to establish the suitability of these polymers for use in Chou. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds that (1) Chou discloses a scattering layer that includes thermoplastics, which would include the polycarbonate of Cooper, (2) Chou and Cooper are both drawn to displays, (3) Chou discloses a scattering layer comprising thermoplastic and scattering particles, and ( 4) Cooper discloses a scattering layer comprising scattering particles as well as the specific thermoplastic (polycarbonate) of claim 1. Id. Indeed, Chou discloses volume diffusers (which the Examiner equates to the scattering film of claim 1) that include particles dispersed in a binder can typically be formed by coating onto a polycarbonate film. Chou 13: 17-19. This teaching of Chou alone appears to establish the use of polycarbonate in a scattering film layer and further supports that reasonable expectation of using Cooper's polycarbonate (i.e., scattering film) as the material to form Chou's volume diffuser layer (i.e., scattering film). On this basis, the Examiner finds that one of skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of successfully using Cooper's polycarbonate in Chou's display. Id. We find that the Examiner properly concludes that the combination of the teachings of Chou and Cooper would have rendered the subject matter of claim 1 obvious. We affirm the rejection of each of these claims over these references. 3 3 The Examiner's rejection includes Schultz as a reference providing evidence that alumina particles are radiation transmissive. Final Act. 2. Claim 5 requires scattering particles to be radiation transmissive. Appellants make no argument for patentability over Schultz, stating that the Examiner merely cites it for evidence with respect to claim 5. App. Br. 9. 7 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 Rejection of claim 7 under 35U.S.C.§103(a) over Chou in view of Cooper, and further in view of Watanabe Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further requires that the scattering particles comprise hollow particles. App. Br. A-1. The Examiner contends that Watanabe discloses hollow particles used in a light scattering sheet. Final Act. 5. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding, but argue that Watanabe fails to remedy the defects of Chou and Cooper. App. Br. 13. Because the Examiner properly combined the teachings of Chou and Cooper, Appellants' argument fails. We affirm the rejection of claim 7 over Chou in view of Cooper, and further in view of Watanabe. Rejection of claims 19, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chou in view of Cooper, and further in view of Hiraishi Claim 19 depends from claim 1, and further requires an ultraviolet- radiation-absorbing element connected to the organic radiation-emitting element. App. Br. A-2. Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and further requires the ultraviolet-radiation-absorbing element to be arranged on that side of the substrate which is remote from the organic layer. Id. at A-2-A-3. Claim 22 depends from claim 19, and further requires the scattering film to be formed such that it is UV-absorbent. Id. at A-3. Claim 23 depends from claim 1, and further requires the scattering firm to be formed in antistatic fashion. The Examiner acknowledges that Chou in view of Cooper fails to disclose a UV-absorbent element. Final Act. 6. But the Examiner states that Hiraishi discloses a scattering sheet comprising UV absorber and antistatic agents to obtain UV absorption and antistatic properties, and contends that it would be obvious to use the UV absorbers and antistatic agents of Hiraishi 8 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 in the scattering film of Chou to obtain UV absorption and antistatic properties. Id. Again, Appellants depend upon their argument that Chou and Cooper are not properly combined, and state that Hiraishi fails to remedy the defects of Chou and Cooper. App. Br. 13. For the reasons given above regarding claim 1, the Examiner properly combined Chou and Cooper, and Appellants' argument is not persuasive. We affirm the rejection of claims 19, 20, 22, and 23 over Chou in view of Cooper, and further in view ofHiraishi. Rejection of claim 21under35U.S.C.§103(a) over Chou in view of Cooper and Hiraishi, and further in view of Lynam Claim 21 depends from claim 19, and further requires that the ultraviolet-radiation-absorbing element is a UV protective film, which is different from the scattering film. App. Br. A-3. The Examiner finds Lynam discloses an anti-scatter element wherein the element comprises an ultraviolet radiation absorbing layer to reduce ultraviolet radiation transmitted into the assembly, and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use a UV absorbing layer in the component of Chou to reduce ultraviolet radiation transmission. Final Act. 7. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding regarding Lynam, but note that it is directed to an electro-optic rearview mirror assembly. App. Br. 14. Appellants' argument for non-obviousness of claim 21 is limited to a statement that Lynam fails to remedy Chou, Cooper, and Hiraishi's defects. Id. Appellants' argument is not persuasive because the combination of Chou, Cooper, and Hiraishi is not defective, and we affirm the rejection of clam 21 over Chou in view of Cooper and Hiraishi, and further in view of Lynam. 9 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 Rejection of claims 28 and 29 under 35U.S.C.§103(a) over Chou in view of Cooper Independent claim 28 reads the same as claim 1, but with the additional requirement that the scattering particles comprise organic particles. App. Br. A-4. As with claim 1, the Examiner contends that Chou teaches all of the elements of the claim, including that the scattering particles comprise organic particles, but fails to disclose that the plastic is polycarbonate. Final Act. 7. Cooper is said to disclose a display device having scattering film comprising polycarbonate and scattering particles in order to control the degree and type of scattering. Id. at 8. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to use the scattering film of Cooper in the element of Chou to control degree and type of scattering, and, given that the scattering film of Chou in view of Cooper comprises polycarbonate as claimed, "it would intrinsically possess the same properties such as it is transmissive to the radiation generated in the component." Id. Claim 29 depends from claim 1, and further requires that "the scattering particles have an average particle diameter of between 0.5 micrometer and 50 micrometers inclusive." App. Br. A-4. The Examiner finds that Chou discloses the scattering particles have a particle size of 1 or less to 10 microns. Id. The Appellants do not dispute the finding. For claims 28 and 29, Appellants reiterate their arguments regarding claim 1 that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Chou with Cooper. App. Br. 15. We again agree with the Examiner. We affirm the rejections of claims 28 and 29. 10 Appeal2015-000658 Application 12/375,875 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-9, 14--25, and 27-30 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation