Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2019

13832350 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/832,350 03/15/2013 RuiqingMa
108576 7590 03/14/2019
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-872US-CIP 6842
EXAMINER
LEE,JAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2019 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 RUIQING MA, EMORY KRALL,
JASON PAYNTER, and JEFFREY SIL VERN AIL
Appeal2018-005189
Application 13/832,350
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant (Universal Display Corporation) appeals under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, 22-
30, 32-38, 40, 41, 43, and 44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The claims are to an organic light emitting device (OLED). Claim 1
is illustrative:
1. A first product comprising:
a plurality of organic light emitting device (OLED) panels,
each OLED panel moveably connected to at least one other of
Appeal2018-005189
Application 13/832,350
the plurality of OLED panels, and each OLED panel
comprising an active area that includes a plurality of OLEDs;
wherein an active area of a first OLED panel of the plurality
of OLED panels is disposed within 2.0 mm of an active area of
a second OLED panel of the plurality of OLED panels.
Shim
Khoo
Livesay
Bohn
The References
US 2008/0238301 Al
US 2008/0247128 Al
US 2012/0063137 Al
US 2012/0307472 Al
The Rejections
Oct. 2, 2008
Oct. 9, 2008
Mar. 15, 2012
Dec. 6, 2012
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1-
8, 10-12, 14--18, 22-30, 32-38, 40, 41, 43, and 44 over Shim in view of
Khoo, claims 1, 2, and 13 over Shim in view of Livesay, 1 and claim 38 over
Shim in view of Bohn.
OPINION
We reverse the rejection over Shim in view of Khoo as to claims 1-8,
10-12, 18, 22-30, 32-38, 40, 41, 43, and 44 and affirm it as to claims 14--
17, and affirm the rejections over Shim in view of Livesay and over Shim in
view of Bohn.
Rejection over Shim in view of Khoo
We need address only the independent claims (1, 14, 18, and 38).
Claim 1
Shim discloses an organic electro luminescence device comprising a
light emission unit (212) (active region) on a substrate (210), wherein the
1 The Examiner erroneously omits Shim from the statement of this rejection
(Final Act. 26).
2
Appeal2018-005189
Application 13/832,350
distance (d3) between the light emission unit (212) and an edge of the
substrate (210) is approximately 1 mm (i1 50; Fig. 4).
Khoo discloses a display having border gaps (124, 125) between
hinged screen panels (106, 107), and teaches that the gap (115) between the
screens should be as narrow as possible to "allow the gap to become a minor
irritation rather than a clear obstruction to display useability" (i135; Figs. 2,
4B). Khoo further teaches that "some OLED screens feature a top border of
only around 2 mm" (i1 3 6).
The Examiner states that the Examiner "is merely utilizing the
secondary reference Khoo to teach the existence of foldable frames, and to
demonstrate the obviousness of having folding frames for purposes of
making compact multiple displays ( see Fig. 2 for example of Khoo)"
(Ans. 2), and that "Khoo also shows with regards to motivation and
suggestion to having gaps as narrow as possible to prevent 'clear obstruction
to display usability' (see i-f35 for example of Khoo)" (id.). Regarding Shim,
the Examiner finds (Ans. 2-3):
Shim clearly discloses how the distance from the edge of an
active region to the boundary is 'approximately 1 mm' (see i-f50
of Shim). Here, one of ordinary skill can reasonably deduce the
terms 'approximately 1 mm' to include values such as 0.99mm
or 0.98mm. If we were to take 0.99mm, for example, and put
two structures together, one would arrive at a combined
distance of 1.98mm (i.e. 0.99mm + 0.99 mm) from active area
to active area which thus falls clearly within the claimed
2. 00mm requirement.
The Examiner does not establish that in view of Khoo' s disclosure
pertaining to hinged screen minimal border areas and gap sizes, that "some
OLED screens feature a top border of only around 2 mm" (i136), Shim and
3
Appeal2018-005189
Application 13/832,350
Khoo would have led one of ordinary skill in the art one of ordinary skill in
the art to hinge Shim's diced substrates (210) such that the border (d3)
around each light emission unit (212; Fig. 4) is as small as the unhinged
device's border of approximately 1 mm, such that even if that value includes
0.99 mm, the distance between the light emission units (212) in the hinged
device is no more than 2.0 mm.
Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis sufficient to
support a conclusion of obviousness of the product claimed in the
Appellant's claim 1 over the combined disclosures of Shim and Khoo. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on
section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior
art."). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent
claims over the combined disclosures of those references.
Claims 18 and 38
Claims 18 and 3 8 include a limitation comparable to the
above-discussed claim 1 limitation, and the Examiner's rationale in rejecting
those claims (Final Act. 14--15, 22-24) is similar to that relied upon in
rejecting claim 1 (Final Act. 5---6). Hence, although the Appellant does not
separately address claims 18 and 38, for consistency we also reverse the
rejection of those claims and their dependent claims over the combined
disclosures of Shim and Khoo.
Claim 14
Claim 14 does not include a limitation comparable to the above-
discussed claim 1 limitation but, rather, requires an active area of a first
OLED panel disposed a distance D from an active area of a second OLED
4
Appeal2018-005189
Application 13/832,350
panel, where D is not more than a smallest electrical feature in the first
OLED panel.
The Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's fact finding and
conclusion of obviousness regarding claim 14 (Final Act. 11-12)
(App. Br. 5-10). Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
rejection of that claim and its dependent claims 15-17. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of those claims.
Rejections over Shim in view of Livesay and
over Shim in view of Bohn
The Appellant does not address the rejection over Shim in view of
Livesay or the rejection over Shim in view of Bohn (App. Br. 5-10). We
therefore summarily affirm those rejections.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 14--18, 22-30, 32-38, 40, 41, 43,
and 44 over Shim in view of Khoo under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed as to
claims 1-8, 10-12, 18, 22-30, 32-38, 40, 41, 43, and 44 and affirmed as to
claims 14--17. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 2,
and 13 over Shim in view of Livesay, and claim 38 over Shim in view of
Bohn are affirmed.
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. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5