Ex Parte Peng

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 15, 2009

11230432 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 15, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DU-ZEN PENG
____________

Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: September 15, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to the pixel structure of an organic light-
emitting diode (OLED) display wherein the pixel structure includes sub-
pixel areas corresponding to red, green, blue and white illumination (Spec.
¶¶ [0007] – [0009]). The control circuit for controlling a first sub-pixel area
and a second sub-pixel area is placed in the second area (Spec. ¶ [0023]).
According to Appellant, by placing the control circuit in the second area, the
area of the OLED in the first sub-pixel area may be increased, resulting in
improved brightness (Spec. ¶ [0024]). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
claimed invention, reads as follows:
1. A system for emitting light comprising:

a pixel structure of an organic light-emitting diode (OLED), the
pixel structure comprising:

a first sub-pixel area including a first OLED; and

a second sub-pixel area including a second OLED and a control
circuit, wherein said control circuit includes electronic components
for controlling said first and second OLEDs.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Yamazaki US 2003/0075733 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Winters US 6,771,028 B1 Aug. 3, 2004
Miwa US 2005/0280616 A1 Dec. 22, 2005
(filed Jun. 16, 2005)

The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Miwa.
Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

3
Claims 3-8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miwa and Winters. 1
Claims 9-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Miwa and Winters and further in view of Yamazaki.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision.
Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
With respect to the anticipation rejection of independent claim 1,
Appellant argues that Miwa does not describe the claimed first and second
sub-pixel areas wherein the second sub-pixel area includes a control circuit
for controlling the first and second sub-pixel areas (App. Br. 9). Appellant
contends that the Examiner’s position is based on combining the sub-pixel
areas 1a, 1b, and 1c of Miwa with the disclosed driver circuit 2 as the
claimed the claim “‘second sub-pixel area’” (id.).
Regarding the obviousness rejection over Miwa and Winters,
Appellant focuses on Miwa and challenges Winters only based on Winters’
inability to remedy the deficiencies of Miwa (App. Br. 16). Appellant relies
on the same arguments presented regarding claim 1 (App. Br. 11-15) and

1 We observe that in claim 3, the recited term “said second control circuit”
in relation to “a first control circuit” lacks antecedent basis. It appears that
in an amendment to the claims, filed Aug. 8, 2007, Appellant changed the
term “second control circuit” to “first control circuit” but left “said second
control circuit” unchanged.
Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

4
further argues that none of the “‘sub-pixel circuits’” 1a, 1b, and 1c in Miwa
controls both a second OLED and “any of the first OLED, a third OLED, a
fourth OLED, or a combination …,” as recited in claim 3 (App. Br. 15).
With respect to the obviousness rejection over Miwa and Winters in view of
Yamazaki, Appellant provides no argument.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments present the following issues:
1. With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 2, has Appellant
shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Miwa teaches the claimed
second sub-pixel area including a control circuit for controlling the first and
second sub-pixel areas?
2. With respect to the remaining claims, has Appellant shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Miwa with Winters
teaches the claimed requirements of claims 3 and 20?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issues
involved in the appeal.
1. Miwa discloses in Figure 1 a display device including pixel
circuits arranged as a matrix, while the number of pixel circuits forming the
matrix is not limited to the three shown. (¶ [0024].)
2. Miwa shows in Figure 1 plural pixel circuits 1a, 1b, 1c, . . .
(hereinafter collectively referred to as “pixel circuits 1”) arranged in a
matrix, and a driver circuit 2 which supplies predetermined electric signals
to the pixel circuits 1. (¶ [0025].)
Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

5
3. Miwa discloses that the pixel circuits include an OLED 3a, 3b,
or 3c which emits light in accordance with the amount of injected electric
current. (¶ [0026].)
4. The display device of Miwa further includes the driver circuit 2
that supplies predetermined electrical signals to the pixel circuit to control
the light-emitting state of OLED 3a in pixel circuit 1. (¶ [0031].)
5. The driver circuit includes cathode potential supplying circuit
10, anode potential supplying circuit 11, scan line driving circuit 12, first
and second control circuits 13 and 14, and data voltage supplying circuit 15.
(¶ [0032] – [0036].)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. Scope of Claim
The scope of the claims in patent applications is determined not solely
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest
reasonable construction in light of the Specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The “broadest reasonable
interpretation” rule recognizes that “before a patent is granted the claims are
readily amended as part of the examination process.” Burlington Indus., Inc.
v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1581, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, a patent applicant has
the opportunity and responsibility to remove any ambiguity in claim term
meaning by amending the application. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05
(CCPA 1969).
Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

6
2. Anticipation
A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single
prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either
expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could
practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
3. Obviousness
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The
initial burden of establishing reasons for unpatentability rests on the
examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The Examiner can satisfy this burden by showing some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
§ 102 Rejection over Miwa
The Examiner reads the claimed second sub-pixel area on the area in
Figure 1 including one of the pixel circuits and the driving circuit that
controls at least two OLEDs 3a and 3b (Ans. 12). The Examiner reasons
(id.) that claim 1 does not delimit the term “‘area’” to have any specific
metes and bounds and therefore, an area including the control circuits
Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

7
adjacent the pixel circuit is not precluded by the claim term.2 The Examiner
further characterizes one of the other pixel circuits as the claimed first sub-
pixel area (Ans. 14).
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
being anticipated by Miwa are not persuasive. We disagree with Appellant’s
argument that the arrangement shown in Figure 1 is the “‘overall structure of
a display’” and different from a “‘second sub-pixel area’” (App. Br. 9-10).
While Figure 1 of Miwa relates to a display, the depicted components are
part of the overall structure of a display. As parts of the display, Figure 1
shows a driver circuit 2 and plural pixel circuits 1a-13a (FF 1) wherein the
electric signals supplied by the driver circuit causes the OLED in each
circuit to emit light (FF 2-4).
Appellant further argues that the driver circuit 2 cannot reasonably be
interpreted as a part of a “second sub-pixel area” since the lines connecting
the two portions indicate significant separation between the two (App. Br.
10). Based on the breadth of the claim, we disagree with Appellant and note
that the second area is not limited by the claim to any specific size or shape.
Further, even if the driver circuit and a pixel circuit are to be connected by
wirings, they are still adjoining one another and form a sub-pixel area.
Lastly, Appellant contends that “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that one
of the ‘sub-pixel circuits’ 1a, 1b and 1c in Miwa corresponds to a circuit
included in the ‘second sub-pixel area,’ the ‘sub-pixel circuits’ still do not
describe a ‘control circuit’ included in a ‘second sub-pixel area’” (App. Br.

2 The Examiner states that using the word “vague” in the Final Rejection
was intended to mean “broad” and argues that the claim term “sub-pixel
area” is interpreted to encompass an area having any shape.
Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

8
10). Appellant argues that each of the “‘sub-pixel circuits’” in Miwa
controls only the OLED of the respective sub-pixel and not any other OLED
(id.). We find that Appellant’s argument is based on characterizing the
circuit in a sub-pixel as the claimed control circuit, whereas the Examiner
reads the second sub-pixel area on an area in Miwa that encompasses the
driver circuit 2 and one pixel circuit. The driver circuit 2 provides the
signals to control the OLED in the pixel circuit of the second area as well as
the OLED in all the other pixel circuits which include the first sub-pixel area
(FF 4-5).
Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s finding
that Miwa teaches the claimed second sub-pixel area including a control
circuit for controlling the first and second sub-pixel areas. Accordingly, we
conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, as well as claim 2 grouped therewith as falling with claim 1 (App.
Br. 11), under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

§ 103 Rejection over Miwa and Winters
With respect to claims 3 and 20, Appellant presents (App. Br. 11-21)
the same arguments discussed above and found to be unpersuasive and
merely contends that Winters fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of
Miwa (App. Br. 16, 20). Appellant further challenges the combinability of
the references (App. Br. 21-23) by generally stating that the combination is
based on hindsight (App. Br. 23).
We consider such conclusory assertions without supporting
explanation or analysis particularly pointing out errors in the Examiner’s
reasoning to fall short of persuasively rebutting the Examiner’s prima facie
Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

9
case. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. Because Appellant has not shown that
the Examiner erred, we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3
and 20, as well as claims 4-8 not argued separately, over Miwa and Winters.

§ 103 Rejection over Miwa, Winters, and Yamazaki
Appellant provides no arguments regarding this rejection and merely
concludes that this panel should reverse the rejection of all the claims (App.
Br. 24). In the absence of any arguments with respect to these claims, we
also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 9-19 over Miwa,
Winters, and Yamazaki.

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred (1) in finding that Miwa
teaches the claimed second sub-pixel area including a control circuit for
controlling the first and second sub-pixel areas and (2) in finding that the
combination of Miwa with Winters teaches the claimed requirements of
claims 3 and 20.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-003184
Application 11/230,432

10
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP
600 GALLERIA PARKWAY, S.E.
STE 1500
ATLANTA, GA 30339-5994