Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2018

14067569 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2018)

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.
14/067,569 10/30/2013 Jeong-Kyoo Kim SDCYOU.332AUS 6992
20995 7590 01/23/2018
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2018 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):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEONG-KYOO KIM and HYUNG-RYUL KANG1
Appeal 2017-004243
Application 14/067,569
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—10, 14—19, 21, and 22.2 We have jurisdiction over this
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Samsung Display Co., Ltd., which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 11—13 and 20 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 12—13.
Appeal 2017-004243
Application 14/067,569
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to “the shape of
sub-pixels forming a pixel” in an organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
display. Spec. 12.3
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. An organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display,
comprising:
a plurality of pixels arranged in a first direction and a
second direction that cross each other,
wherein each of the pixels comprises:
first and second sub-pixels having a substantially isosceles
triangle shape, wherein the second sub-pixel is inverted with
respect to the first sub-pixel; and
third and fourth sub-pixels having a substantially right
triangle shape, wherein the fourth sub-pixel is inverted with
respect to the third sub-pixel,
wherein the first and second sub-pixels are configured to
respectively emit light of blue and white colors,
wherein the third and fourth sub-pixels are configured to
respectively emit light of green and red colors,
3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to the following documents: (1)
Appellant’s Specification, filed October 30, 2013 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed November 4, 2015; (3) the Appeal
Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed April 29, 2016; (4) the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.”), mailed November 9, 2016; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”),
filed January 6, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-004243
Application 14/067,569
wherein the first and second sub-pixels have substantially
the same shape and size,
wherein the third and fourth sub-pixels have substantially
the same shape and size, and
wherein the size of the third sub-pixel is about half the size
of the first sub-pixel.
Appeal Br. 10.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Credelle
Manabe et al. (“Manabe”)
Takatori
US 2003/0128179 Al July 10, 2003
US 2007/0206135 Al Sept. 6, 2007
US 2010/0013853 Al Jan. 21, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—9, 14—17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Takatori and Credelle. Final
Act. 3—20.
Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Takatori, Credelle, and Manabe. Final
Act. 20-21.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
3
Appeal 2017-004243
Application 14/067,569
ISSUE
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Takatori and
Credelle teaches or suggests “wherein the size of the third sub-pixel is about
half the size of the first sub-pixel,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determines claim 1 is obvious over the combination of
Takatori and Credelle. Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 21—22.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings, arguing “the cited
references do not teach or suggest at least ‘the size of the third sub-pixel is
about half the size of the first sub-pixel,’” as recited in claim 1. Appeal
Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant argues “Takatori shows that all of the red,
green, blue, and white sub-pixels (68r, 68g, 68b, 68w) have the same shape
(triangle) and size” and “Credelle discloses that the size of the green sub­
pixel (106) is actually about twice the size of the blue sub-pixel (102).”
Appeal Br. 7.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Takatori teaches first (blue), second (white), third (green) and fourth (red)
sub-pixels, with the first and second sub-pixels having a substantially
isosceles triangle shape and being inverted with respect to each other. Final
Act. 3—\\ Ans. 21—22 (citing Takatori, Fig. 42, elements 68b, 68w, 68g, and
68r, respectively, and 1168). The Examiner relies on Credelle to teach
splitting a pixel or sub-pixel into equal pieces. Ans. 21 (citing Credelle Fig.
19B — “the [blue] pixel on the bottom row) wherein the one of the pixels
(Element 102) is split into two pixels.”). The Examiner further finds, and
we agree, that the “modification of Takatori in view of Credelle would
4
Appeal 2017-004243
Application 14/067,569
create a pixel with two isosceles triangles (of blue and white color) and two
‘halved’ right triangles (of green and red colors)” and “[gjiven this
modification, the applied prior art would teach a green sub-pixel that is half
the size of a blue sub-pixel.” Ans. 22.
Appellant’s argument that Takatori shows all of the red, green, blue,
and white sub-pixels have the same shape and size and that Credelle shows
the size of the green sub-pixel is actually twice the size of the blue sub-pixel
(Appeal. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4—5) does not address the Examiner’s actual
findings and improperly attacks Takatori and Credelle individually while the
rejection is based on the combination of Takatori and Credelle. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, Appellant’s argument does
not address the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to
split Takatori’s green sub-pixels into equal pieces (yielding two right
triangles, each half the size of the original isosceles triangle) based on
Credelle’s teaching of splitting a blue pixel into equal pieces. Final Act. 5;
Ans. 22. In our view, substituting Takatori’s green pixel for Credelle’s blue
pixel may be fairly characterized as a simple substitution of one known
element for another, or a predictable variation within the level of skill of
those having ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Credelle.
KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant fails to
show that splitting a green pixel would be performed any differently than
splitting a blue pixel or would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at419).4
4 We note Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s determination that
“[a]t the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of
5
Appeal 2017-004243
Application 14/067,569
As discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual
findings or conclusion of obviousness from the proffered combination.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claim 1 as well as the rejection of independent claim 14, which
is argued for similar reasons as independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6.
Dependent claims 2—10, 15—19,21, and 22 are not argued separately and so
the rejection of these claims are sustained for the reasons given for their
respective independent claims. See Appeal Br. 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 14—19, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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).
AFFIRMED
ordinary skill in the art to modify the pixel array display device of Takatori
with the sub-pixel arrangements of Credelle. The motivation to modify the
teachings of Takatori with the teachings of Credelle is to help in breaking up
the noticeable effect of visible vertical blue stripes down the display, as
taught by Credelle.” Final Act. 4—5 (citing Credelle 124).
6