Ex Parte Nomura et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

11408216 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111408,216 0412012006
24628 7590 08/22/2016
Husch Blackwell LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22NDFLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ryoji Nomura
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.
0553-0495 9037
EXAMINER
RAABE, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2879
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RYOJI NOMURA, KAORU KATO,
SATOSHI YOSHIMOTO, and SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI 1
Appeal2015-001126
Application 11/408,216
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JULIE HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 22, 25-27, and
49---68 in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Semiconductor Energy
Laboratory Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2015-001126
Application 11/408,216
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to "a light emitting device having a
multistacked structure including an organic light emitting layer and a carrier
transporting layer made from an organic compound so that high light
emitting efficiency and less deterioration in characteristics are realized."
Spec. i-f 7. Independent claim 1 is representative:
1. A light emitting device comprising:
a substrate;
an anode over the substrate;
a cathode over the anode;
light emitting layers each comprising a first organic
compound and being provided between the anode and the
cathode; and
hole transporting layers each comprising a second organic
compound and being provided between the anode and the
cathode,
wherein each of the light emitting layers and each of the
hole transporting layers are alternately stacked,
wherein each of the light emitting layers has an electron
transporting property, and
wherein each of the light emitting layers emits same light.
Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). Claims 7, 13, 21 are also independent, and
contain the same emphasized limitation. See id. at 15-18.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 22,
25-27, and 49---68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Int'l
Publication No. WO 2005/027586 Al (published Mar. 24, 2005) [hereinafter
Kashiwabara],2 in view of U.S. Patent Application No.
US 2002/0132134 Al (published Sept. 19, 2002) [Hu], U.S. Patent
2 Citations to Kashiwabara are to English language equivalent U.S. Patent
Application No. US 2006/0227079 Al (published Oct. 12, 2006). See Final
Action 2.
2
Appeal2015-001126
Application 11/408,216
Application No. US 2005/0248267 Al (published Nov. 10, 2005)
[hereinafter Gyoutoku] and U.S. Patent No. 5,869,217 (issued Feb. 9, 1999)
[Aono]. Final Action 2.
Appellants argue the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 9-12.
Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013), we limit our discussion to independent claim 1, and all claims stand
or fall together.
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Kashiwabara teaches the structure of claim 1,
except that it "does not disclose the light emitting layers to emit the same
[wavelength ]3 light." Final Action 3. However, the Examiner finds that
Gyoutoku discloses "analogous light emitting layers (34, 35) emitting the
same light (as they are composed of the same materials) as [a] suitable
alternative to a configuration wherein the light emitting layers emit differing
light, enabling the production of a single-color device." Id. at 4 (citing
Gyoutoku Fig. 7, i-f 974). The Examiner determines that "[i]t would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
incorporate this feature of Gyoutoku et al. into the device ofKashiwabara."
Id.
3 The Examiner interprets "same light" as referring to the same wavelength,
and Appellants interpret the claim as requiring "substantially the same band
gap for each layer." Appeal Br. 9. As it relates to our decision, these
interpretations are equivalent.
4 Apparently, the Examiner intended to cite paragraph 92 of Gyoutoku,
which teaches that light emission layers 34 and 3 5 "may be composed of the
same material or different ones."
3
Appeal2015-001126
Application 11/408,216
Appellants argue that "Kashiwabara teaches away from light emitting
layers that emit the same light," because Kashiwabara teaches that the
plurality of light emitting layers each emit different colors, and that the
structure is designed to allow for the well-balanced extraction of the colors.
See Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing Kashiwabara ifil 3---6, 14 ); Reply Br. 7 (citing
Kashiwabara Abstract, iii! 3--4, 14, 69, 71, 76, 97).
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive of error in the
rejection. Kashiwabara teaches that the disclosed multi-emitter, multicolor
device is superior, in terms of color balance and color reproduction
performance, to an alternative device emitting white light in which multiple
colors are achieved by using filters. See Kashiwabara iii! 3--4. However,
Appellants have not directed our attention to any teaching in Kashiwabara
that would dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from investigation
into a single-color device such as that defined by claim 1, which does not
require a white light emitter or filters. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar,
Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("A reference does not teach away .
. . if it ... does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage'
investigation into the invention claimed." (alterations in original) (quoting
another source)); see also In re Fulton, 391F.3d1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner's determination that
"one of ordinary skill in the art would not be dissuaded by the disclosure of
Kashiwabara from incorporating the concept of Gyoutoku (providing
multiple single color layers) into the device disclosed by Kashiwabara."
Answer 13.
Appellants also argue that incorporating the teachings of Gyoutoku
into the Kashiwabara device would render the latter unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose. See Appeal Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 4---6 (citing In re
4
Appeal2015-001126
Application 11/408,216
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). According to Appellants, this is
because the primary problem that Kashiwabara addresses is "to provide an
organic EL device having light emission components of three colors of red,
green and blue in good balance," which must be accomplished by providing
"a plurality of light emitting layers different in emission color." Reply Br.
5---6.
Obviousness does not require that the teachings of Gyoutoku be
bodily incorporated into the structure of Kashiwabara. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner cites Gyoutoku for the teaching
that stacked light emitting layers may have the same wavelength, as an
alternative to having different wavelengths. See Final Action 3--4. The
Examiner also cites Gyoutoku as teaching that multiple light emitting layers
of the same wavelength may be used "to suit user's aesthetic demands."
Answer 13. We note that according to Gyoutoku, the use of multiple
stacked emitters of the same wavelength may have "an effective result that
the light quantity emitted by an organic electroluminescence element is
enhanced." Gyoutoku i-f 25; see also i-f 119.
While Kashiwabara discloses a full-color device, Appellants
arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding, see Answer
13, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Kashiwabara and Gyoutoku to produce a single
color device. Moreover, Appellants have not explained why the use of
multiple light emitting layers for each color, as taught by Gyoutoku, is
incompatible with a multicolor display as disclosed by Kashiwabara. See
Gyoutoku Fig. 7, i-fi-1 124 (describing a "color image-forming apparatus"
using multiple layers 34 and 35 as an alternative to "a mono-chromatic (for
example, black) image-forming apparatus")
5
Appeal2015-001126
Application 11/408,216
Appellants also argue that combining the teachings of Gyoutoku
would "change the principle of operation of Kashiwabara" because the
combination would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the
structure of Kashiwabara, and would change the principles on which
Kashiwabara was designed to operate. Reply Br. 6-7 (citing In re Ratti, 270
F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959)). Similarly, Appellants argue that
the alleged concept of Gyoutoku cannot be incorporated into
the Kashiwabara device in an attempt to provide an OLED
having the stacked light-emitting layers with the same emission
color as it would clearly be impossible then to attain a white-
emissive OLED with the well-balanced three colors of
Kashiwabara. It is well known that a white emission requires
broad emission spectrum in the visible region and that no
organic material can solely cover such a wide range wavelength
by its emission spectrum.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellants do not support these technical arguments with
citations to factual evidence. Moreover, these arguments are based on the
unwarranted assumption that combining the teachings ofKashiwabara and
Gyoutoku must result in a white-emissive device with only a single
wavelength for all stacked light emitting layers. As discussed above, the
combination of Kashiwabara and Gyoutoku is not incompatible with a
multicolor device within the scope of claim 1, having multiple light emitting
layers for each color.
Therefore, by a preponderance of the evidence presented to us on this
appeal record, we find no reversible error in the Examiner's decision to
reject independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons,
we find no reversible error in the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 5,
7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17-19, 21, 22, 25-27, and 49---68.
6
Appeal2015-001126
Application 11/408,216
DECISION
The Examiner's decision 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).
AFFIRMED
7