Ex Parte Miwa et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613513157 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/513,157 10/12/2012 Koichi Miwa 96048/US 3006 112458 7590 12/30/2016 Global OLED Technology LLC 13921 Park Center Road Suite 380 Herndon, VA 20171 EXAMINER EURICE, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2693 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): patents @ globaloledtech. com dgrowe@globaloledtech.com j gisone @ globaloledtech. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOICHI MIWA and YUICHI MAEKAWA1 Appeal 2016-004314 Application 13/513,157 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. 1 Appellants identify Global OLED Technology LLC, a subsidiary of LG Display Co., Ltd., as the real party in interest. Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2016-004314 Application 13/513,157 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 and 21—24. Claims 2—20 have been canceled. App. Br. 15. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a pixel circuit having low power consumption. Abstract, Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A pixel circuit comprising: an organic EL element with a first electrode connected to a first power supply; a thin-film driving transistor formed from polysilicon with a first electrode connected to a second power supply and a second electrode connected to a second electrode of the organic EL element; a retentive capacitor connected between a gate of the driving transistor and the first electrode of the driving transistor; a thin-film writing transistor with a first electrode connected to a data line and a second electrode connected to the gate of the driving transistor for switchably connecting the data line to the gate of the driving transistor, characterized in that a mutual conductance of the driving transistor per display unit area of the organic EL element is equal to or higher than 1 x 10'11 (A / V / m2). 2 Appeal 2016-004314 Application 13/513,157 REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The following rejections made by the Examiner to the claims on appeal and the prior art relied upon in the rejections made are: Claims 1, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2009/0284451 Al; Nov. 19, 2009) (“Yamamoto”), ADEL S. SEDRA & KENNETH C. SMITH, MICROELECTRONIC CIRCUITS, 33A-335, 362, A-l 1 (2nd ed. 1987) (“Sedra”), and Marks et al. (US 2009/0050876 Al; Feb. 26, 2009) (“Marks”). Final Act. 2—5. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamamoto, Sedra, Marks, and Sagawa et al. (US 2009/0128017 Al; May 21, 2009) (“Sagawa”). Final Act. 5-8. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS 1. “Yamamoto, Sedra and Marks, when taken alone or in combination, fail to teach the mutual conductance of a transistor in relationship to the display unit area of an organic EL element.” App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). 2. “Yamamoto and Sedna [sic] are not properly combinable with Marks.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). ANALYSIS2 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 10—14; Reply Br. 2-4. We are 2 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 11, 2015); Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 11, 3 Appeal 2016-004314 Application 13/513,157 not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions regarding the pending claims and, in connection therewith, adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2— 10), and as set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—8). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Yamamoto, Sedra, and Marks teaches or suggests “a mutual conductance of the [thin-film driving transistor formed from polysilicon] per display unit area of the organic EL element is equal to or higher than 1 x 10'11 (A / V / m2),” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-4. In particular, Appellants argue Yamamoto does not teach or suggest a “mutual conductance of the driving transistor either on its own, or in relationship to a display unit area of an organic EL element.” App. Br. 11. Appellants similarly argue neither Sedra nor Marks teach this disputed limitation. Id. Appellants’ contentions are not persuasive at least because Appellants consider the teachings of Yamamoto, Sedra, and Marks in isolation and fail to specifically rebut the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness that is based on the combination of Yamamoto, Sedra, and Marks. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Yamamoto to teach a thin-film driving transistor formed from polysilicon. Final Act. 3. Further, the Examiner relies on Sedra to teach a driving 2016); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 23, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed on January 14, 2016). 4 Appeal 2016-004314 Application 13/513,157 transistor’s mutual conductance “of about 0.012 A/V.” Final Act. 3^4. Still further, the Examiner relies on Marks to teach an electroluminescent pixel element having a width of 71 pm and a length of 213 pm and, thus, an “area of about 15x1 O'9 m2.” Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner finds the combination of Yamamoto, Sedra, and Marks teaches a mutual conductance of a thin-film driving transistor, formed from polysilicon, per display unit area of an organic EL element is equal to or higher than 1 x 10'11 (A / V / m2). Appellants further argue it would not have been obvious to combine the teachings of Marks with the teachings of Yamamoto and Sedra because “[t]he pre-formed nanowire technology disclosed in the Marks reference is much more akin to single crystal Field-Effect Transistors than it is to thin- film transistors formed from polysilicon.” App. Br. 12 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded of Examiner error because Appellants do not provide sufficient evidence or technical argument explaining why Marks could not be combined with the teachings of Yamamoto and Sedra. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). Further, we find Appellants’ argument is not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection. In particular, the Examiner finds “[t]he motivation to modify Yamamoto and Sedra with Marks arises from the stated need to develop transparent pixel circuitry exhibiting high on-current, high on/off current ratio, high carrier mobility, steep sub-threshold slope, and small threshold 5 Appeal 2016-004314 Application 13/513,157 voltage variations.” Final Act. 5 (citing Marks! 3). Appellants fail to persuasively rebut such findings. Thus, we find the Examiner has articulated a reason based on rational underpinnings for the proposed combination discussed supra, and Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in relying on the motivation articulated in concluding the claim 1 to be obvious. SeeKSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 21—24, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 13—14. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 21—24. 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation