Ex Parte HACK et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 6, 2019

14605757 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/605,757 01/26/2015 Michael HACK
108576 7590 06/10/2019
Morris & Kamlay LLP / UDC
Morris & Kamlay LLP
1911 N. Fort Myer Drive
Suite 1050
Arlington, VA 22209
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.
UDC-lOllUS 6650
EXAMINER
BRASFIELD, QUINTON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2019 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):
pto@morriskamlay.com
docket@morriskamlay.com
aaron@morriskamlay.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL HACK, JULIA J. BROWN,
MICHAEL STUART WEA VER, and
WOO-YOUNG SO
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In explaining our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed January 26,
2015 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated October 6, 2017 ("Final Act.");
Appeal Brief filed April 25, 2018 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer dated
June 12, 2018 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed July 23, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to finally reject claims 1-9, 12-14, 18-21, 27, 29, and 34-37.3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Appellant's disclosure relates to organic light emitting diodes
(OLED), and, in particular, reduced power OLED displays having red,
green, and light blue sub-pixels. Spec. ,-J 3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A device comprising:
an active-matrix driven display including a plurality of
OLED pixels, each OLED pixel comprising:
not more than three sub-pixels, wherein a first sub-pixel
of the not more than three sub-pixels is configured to emit
blue light in a light blue range of the visible spectrum having
a peak emission wavelength in the range of 465-500 nm,
wherein each sub-pixel of the plurality of OLED pixels
that is capable of emitting blue light only emits blue light in the
light blue range, and wherein each pixel comprises no other
sub-pixels that emit blue light.
Appeal Br. 18 (key disputed claim language italicized and bolded).
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Universal Display Corporation (Bib. Data Sheet
1 ), which is also identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1 ).
3 According to the Appeal Brief, claims 10, 11, 15-17, 22-26, 28, and 30-33
are cancelled. Appeal Br. 2, 19-22.
2
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Nakamura et al. ("Nakamura")
Je et al. ("Je")
Weaver et al. ("Weaver")
Yu et al. ("Yu")
Y ano et al. ("Y ano")
Edmond et al. ("Edmond")
Liu et al. ("Liu")
US 2007 /0063946 Al
US 2008/0203905 Al
US 2011/0248294 A 1
US 2011/0309389 Al
US 2012/0026210 Al
US 2013/0146904 Al
US 2015/0034911 Al
The Rejections
Mar. 22, 2007
Aug. 28, 2008
Oct. 13, 2011
Dec. 22, 2011
Feb.2,2012
June 13, 2013
Feb. 5,2015
On appeal, the Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejections:
1. Claims 1-4, 18, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yu in view of Nakamura ("Rejection l "). Final
Act. 3.
2. Claims 5, 6, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yu in view of Nakamura and in further view of
Yano ("Rejection 2"). Final Act. 5.
3. Claims 7, 14, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yu in view of Nakamura and in further view of
Weaver ("Rejection 3"). Final Act. 7.
4. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yu in view of Nakamura and in further view of
Edmond ("Rejection 4"). Final Act. 9.
5. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yu in view of Nakamura and in further view of
Je ("Rejection 5"). Final Act. 10.
3
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
6. Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yu in view of Nakamura and in further view of
Liu ("Rejection 6"). Final Act. 12.
7. Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Yu in view of Je ("Rejection 7"). Final Act. 13.
8. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yano in view of Nakamura ("Rejection 8"). Final
Act. 16.
OPINION
Rejection 1
Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claim 1, but does
not separately argue claims 2-4, 18, and 36. Appeal Br. 5, 16. We select
claim 1 as representative and claims 2-4, 18, and 36 stand or fall with
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Yu and Nakamura
suggests an OLED device satisfying all of the limitations of claim 1 and,
thus, concludes the combination would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
Final Act. 3-4 (citing Yu, Figs. 1, 7-9; Nakamura, Figs. 35A, 35B, ,-J,-J 20-
22, 27, 165, 166).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because Nakamura does not disclose the "not more than three
sub-pixels" and "wherein a first sub-pixel ... is configured to emit blue light
in a light blue range of the visible spectrum having a peak emission
wavelength in the range of 465-500 nm" recitations of the claim. Appeal
Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant contends that, in contrast to
4
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
the claimed invention, "Nakamura discloses a pixel arrangement having at
least six sub-pixels (Rl, R2, Ye, G, Xl, X2)" and is "silent on having one of
three total sub-pixels 'emit blue light in a light blue range of the visible
spectrum having a peak emission wavelength in the range of 465-500 nm,"'
as claimed. Appeal Br. 6.
Appellant also contends that, because "Nakamura is specifically
directed to increasing the number of subpixels," one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention "would not reduce the number of pixels from
the implementations disclosed in Nakamura to achieve the claimed 'not
more than three sub-pixels."' Id. at 10-11 (citing Nakamura ,i 87).
Appellant further argues that Nakamura does not disclose the
"wherein each pixel comprises no other sub-pixels that emit blue light"
recitation of the claim. Id. at 6, 8. Appellant contends that, in contrast to the
claimed invention, Nakamura discloses embodiments that always emit both
blue and cyan light. Id. at 6 (arguing "Nakamura always has both a cyan
sub-pixel and a blue sub-pixel").
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's rejection should be reversed
because
Yu does not disclose or suggest a display having OLED
pixels, with each pixel having not more than three sub-
pixels, where a first sub-pixel of the not more than three
sub-pixels is configured to emit blue light in a light blue
range of the visible spectrum as recited in claim 1.
Id. at 10. In particular, Appellant contends that "Yu merely discloses a color
filter arrangement for a single pixel, where the filter forms zones for red,
green and blue using a surround pattern on the pixel." Id. at 10 (citing Yu,
Fig. 8, 9).
5
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of reversible error
in the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and reasoning provided
by the Examiner at pages 3-4 of the Answer and pages 3-4 of the Final
Office Action. On the record before us, we find that a preponderance of the
evidence and sound technical reasoning support the Examiner's analysis and
determination that the combination of Yu and Nakamura suggests all of the
limitations of claim 1, and conclusion that the combination would have
rendered the claim obvious. Yu, Figs. 1, 7-9, ,-J,-J 38, 56, 58; Nakamura,
Figs. 35A, 35B, ,-J,-J 20-22, 27, 165, 166.
As the Examiner finds (Ans. 3), Yu discloses a device comprising: an
active-matrix driven display 10 including a plurality of OLED pixels 14, 80
with each OLED pixel comprising not more than three sub-pixels 82, 83, 84
and wherein a first sub-pixel 82 of the not more than three sub-pixels is
configured to emit blue light in a blue range of the visible spectrum. Yu,
Figs. 1, 7-9, ,-J,-J 38, 58.
As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 3-4), Nakamura discloses an
active-matrix driven display including a plurality of OLED pixels and that
each OLED pixel comprises a first sub-pixel Xl, which is configured to emit
light in a light blue ("cyan") range of the visible spectrum, which falls
within the claimed range of "465-500 nm." Nakamura, Figs. 35A, 35B, ,-J 20
( disclosing the "plurality of subpixels further include a cyan subpixel for
displaying cyan"), ,-J 22 ( disclosing that "the cyan subpixel has a dominant
wavelength of no less than 475 nm and no more than 500 nm").
As the Examiner also finds (Ans. 3-4), Nakamura teaches that either
sub-pixel Xl or X2 may be a cyan sub-pixel and thus, suggests that each
pixel comprises a plurality of OLED pixels that is capable of emitting blue
6
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
light only emits blue light in the light blue ( cyan) range and no other pixels
that emit blue light. Nakamura ,i 165 (disclosing "the subpixel Xl or X2 is
either the blue subpixel B or the cyan subpixel C").
The Examiner also provides a reasoned basis, which is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record, to evince why one of
ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Yu and Nakamura to
arrive at the claimed invention. Ans. 4 ( explaining that one of ordinary skill
would have had reason to incorporate Nakamura's first sub-pixel Xl into
Yu's device (replacing sub-pixel blue 82) to allow the pixels to include a
cyan sub-pixel for displaying cyan and a cyan color filter for transmitting
cyan light); Nakamura ,i,i 20, 27. Indeed, the mere substitution of one
equivalent for another known in the art is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398,416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements according to
known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
predictable results.").
Appellant's arguments do not reveal any reversible error in the
Examiner's factual findings and analysis in this regard.
Appellant's arguments that "Nakamura discloses a pixel arrangement
having at least six sub-pixels (Rl, R2, Ye, G, XI, X2)" (Appeal Br. 6) and
"is specifically directed to increasing the number of subpixels" (id. at 10-11)
are not persuasive of reversible error because Appellant attacks the
references individually rather than the combined teachings of the prior art as
a whole. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Appellant's contentions in this
7
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
regard are premised on what Appellant contends the Nakamura reference
teaches individually, and not the combined teachings of the cited references
as a whole and what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 3) and previously
discussed above, the Examiner relies on Yu for teaching or suggesting the
"not more than three sub-pixels" recitation of the claim.
Appellant's contentions that Nakamura discloses embodiments that
always emit both blue and cyan light (Appeal Br. 6) and "always has both a
cyan sub-pixel and a blue sub-pixel" (id. at 6) are not persuasive because
Nakamura's teachings are not limited to certain embodiments provided in its
specification. Contrary to what Appellant's argument suggests, the fact that
Nakamura may describe embodiments that include both a cyan sub-pixel and
a blue sub-pixel, without more, does not take away from the reference's
generic disclosure and teaching that either sub-pixel Xl or X2 may be a
cyan sub-pixel (Nakamura ,i 165), and all that it teaches and would have
reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 661
( CCP A 1977) ( stating that a "reference must be evaluated for all it teaches
and is not limited to its specific embodiments").
Appellant's assertions that "Yu merely discloses a color filter
arrangement for a single pixel, where the filter forms zones for red, green
and blue using a surround pattern on the pixel" (Appeal Br. 10) and that one
of ordinary skill "would not reduce the number of pixels from the
implementations disclosed in Nakamura" (id. at 10-11) are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection because they are conclusory and
unsupported by persuasive evidence in the record. Attorney argument is not
evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also In
8
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that mere
lawyer's arguments or conclusory statements, which are unsupported by
concrete factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, 18,
and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Yu and
Nakamura.
Rejections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6
The Examiner's Rejections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (stated above) are all
obviousness rejections of dependent claims of claim 1 based upon the
combination of Yu and Nakamura, which is discussed above for claim 1, and
an additional reference, respectively. See Final Act. 5, 7, 9, 10, 12.
Appellant does not present any new or additional substantive
arguments in response to these rejections. Rather, Appellant relies on the
same arguments previously presented and discussed above in response to the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16 ("[ A Js independent
claim 1 is patentable for at least the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully
submitted that all dependent claims, including claims 2-9, 12-14, 18-21, 27,
29, and 3 6, are also in condition for allowance."); Reply Br. 7 (same).
Accordingly, based on the findings and technical reasoning provided
by the Examiner and for principally the same reasons discussed above for
affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 (Rejection 1, stated above), we
affirm the Examiner's Rejections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Rejection 7
Claim 34
Claim 34 is directed to and recites a device comprising:
9
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
an active-matrix driven display including a plurality of
OLED pixels, wherein the power consumed by the display is
less than 6 m W/cm2 when the display is operated at a
luminance of at least 700 cd/m2, excluding driving circuity
external to the active-matrix display.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Yu and J e suggests
an OLED device satisfying all of the limitations of claim 34 and, thus,
concludes the combination would have rendered claim 34 obvious. Final
Act. 13-14 (citing Yu, Figs. 1, 7-9; Je, Fig. 1, ,i 78 (Tablel)).
Regarding the recitation "wherein the power consumed by the display
is less than 6 m W/cm2 when the display is operated at a luminance of at least
700 cd/m2," the Examiner relies on paragraph 78 and Table 1 of Je for
teaching or suggesting this limitation of the claim. Final Act. 14. In
particular, the Examiner finds Je discloses a device comprising an active-
matrix driven display including a plurality of OLED pixels, wherein the
power consumed by the display is less than 6 m W/cm2 when the display is
operated at a luminance of at least 700/cd/m2, excluding driving circuitry
external to the active-matrix display. Id. at 13-14 (citing Je ,i 78 (Table l));
see also Ans. 5 (finding Je's device "has a power consumption of at least 58
mW/ cm2" and "can also be successfully operated [ at a luminance of] at least
700 cd/m2").
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 34 should be
reversed because Je does not teach or suggest the "wherein the power
consumed by the display is less than 6 m W/cm2 when the display is operated
at a luminance of at least 700 cd/m2" recitation of the claim. Appeal Br. 11.
In particular, Appellant contends that, in contrast to the claimed invention,
10
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
Je discloses a device having a luminance of 700 cd/m2 at a voltage of 5.8 V
and a current of 0.9 mA, which corresponds to a power consumed by the
display value of 58 m W/cm2 and is "almost ten times the claimed limit of 6
mW/cm2 or less." Id. at 11-12 (citing Je ,-i,-i 77, 78 (Table 1)).
Appellant's argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection because the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the cited art teaches or suggests "wherein
the power consumed by the display is less than 6 m W/cm2 when the display
is operated at a luminance of at least 700 cd/m2," as recited the claim. In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding that the examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness).
As Appellant correctly points out (Appeal Br. 11-12), although
paragraph 78 and Table 1 of Je disclose a device having a luminance of
700 cd/m2 at a voltage of 5.8 Vanda current of0.9 mA (Comparative
Example 4), there is no teaching or suggestion that the power consumed by
the device's display is "less than 6 mW/ cm2 when the display is operated at
a luminance of at least 700 cd/m2," as required by the claim. The Examiner
does not identify evidence or provide any calculations in either the Answer
or Final Office Action to show or establish that any of the values reported in
Table 1 of Je teach or suggest this recitation of the claim, and we decline to
do so. Cf In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (rejecting "the
Board's calculations" that "appeared for the first time in the Board's
opinion").
The Examiner also does not provide reasoning sufficient to support a
finding that one of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Yu' s
device such that the power consumed by the device's display is "less than 6
11
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
m W/cm2 when the display is operated at a luminance of at least 700 cd/m2,"
as would be required to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418 (requiring "reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness") (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The Examiner's assertion that "a proper showing of criticality has not
been shown by the applicant" (Ans. 6) is conclusory and, without more,
insufficient to sustain the Examiner's rejection. Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988
(holding "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements").
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 34.
Claim 35
Claim 35 is directed to and recites a device comprising:
an active-matrix driven display including a plurality of
OLED pixels, wherein the power consumed by the display is
divided by the luminance in cd/m2 is less than 0. 08 Wied,
excluding driving circuitry external to the active-matrix display.
Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix) (key disputed claim language italicized
and bolded).
The Examiner determines that the combination of Yu and J e suggests
an OLED device satisfying all of the limitations of claim 35 and, thus,
concludes the combination would have rendered claim 35 obvious. Final
Act. 14-15 (citing Yu, Figs. 1, 7-9; Je, Fig. 1, ,-J 78 (Tablel)). As with claim
34, the Examiner relies on paragraph 78 and Table 1 of Je for teaching or
suggesting the "wherein the power consumed by the display is divided by
the luminance in cd/m2 is less than 0.08 Wied" recitation of the claim. Id. at
15.
12
Appeal2018-007809
Application 141605,757
In response to the Examiner's rejection of claim 35, Appellant relies
on principally the same arguments previously presented in response to the
Examiner's rejection of claim 34. Appeal Br. 12. In particular, Appellant
argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 35 should be reversed because
Je does not teach or suggest the "wherein the power consumed by the
display is divided by the luminance in cdlm2 is less than 0.08 Wied"
recitation of the claim. Id. at 12.
We find Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 35 for principally the same reasons discussed
above in reversing the Examiner's rejection of claim 34. In particular, we
find that the Examiner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that paragraph 78 and Table 1 teach or suggest the "less than 0.08
Wied" recitation of the claim. Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445.
We, therefore, cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 35.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 34 and 35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Yu and Je.
Rejection 8
Claim 37 is directed to an OLED device and recites limitations similar
to claim 1. Compare claim 37 (Appeal Br. 22-23) with, claim 1 (Appeal Br.
18). The Examiner determines that the combination ofYano and Nakamura
suggests an OLED device satisfying all of the limitations of claim 37 and,
thus, concludes the combination would have rendered claim 37 obvious.
Final Act. 16-17 (citing Yano, Figs. 21A, 21B; Nakamura, Figs. 35A, 35B,
,i,i 20-22, 27, 165, 166).
13
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
Appellant argues that the Examiner's rejection of claim 37 should be
reversed because "Y ano does not disclose or suggest the feature of having a
first sub-pixel that emits blue light in a light blue range of the visible
spectrum having a peak emission wavelength in the range of 465-500 nm,"
as recited in the claim. Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 6-7.
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection based on the fact-finding and for the well-stated
reasoning provided by the Examiner at pages 16-17 of the Final Office
Action and pages 7-8 of the Answer, which we find is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence in this appeal record. Yano, Figs. 21A, 21B;
Nakamura, Figs. 35A, 35B, ,-J,-J 20-22, 27, 165, 166.
Appellant's argument is not well-taken because it is based on what
Appellant contends the Y ano reference teaches individually and not what the
combined teachings of the references as a whole would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
As the Examiner explains (Ans. 7), and Appellant seems to
acknowledge (Appeal Br. 15-16), the Examiner does not rely on Yano for
teaching or suggesting the "first sub-pixel configured to emit blue light in a
light blue range of the visible spectrum having a peak emission wavelength
in the range of 465-500 nm" recitation of the claim. Rather, the Examiner
relies on Nakamura for suggesting this limitation of the claim (see Ans. 7-8;
Final Act. 16-17).
In particular, as the Examiner finds (Ans. 7; Final Act. 16), Yano
discloses not more than four sub-pixels comprising a first sub-pixel 20B
configured to emit blue light in a blue range of the visible spectrum. Yano,
Figs. 2 lA, 21 B, ,-J 40 ( disclosing "sub-pixel 20B corresponding to a blue (B)
14
Appeal2018-007809
Application 14/605,757
color"), ,i 115 (discussing Figures 21A and 21B and disclosing that "[e]ach
pixel 20-1 includes the sub-pixels 20R, 20G, and 20B").
As the Examiner further finds (Ans. 7-8; Final Act. 16-17) and
previously discussed above in affirming the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
Nakamura discloses a first sub-pixel Xl configured to emit blue light in a
light blue range of the visible spectrum having a peak emission wavelength
in the range of 465-500 nm. Nakamura, Figs. 35A, 35B, ,i,i 20-22, 165, 166.
Appellant's assertions that "Yano discloses having an additional pixel
with a higher luminance than red, green or blue, such as white or yellow
pixel" and "one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
not add a cyan pixel or a cyan color filter to Yano" (Appeal Br. 16) are not
persuasive of reversible error because they are conclusory and unsupported
by persuasive evidence in the record. Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 37 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination ofYano and Nakamura.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 12-14, 18-21, 27, 29, 36,
and 37 (Rejections 1-6 and 8, stated above) are affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 34 and 35 (Rejection 7, stated
above) is reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15