Ex Parte Ryu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2017

13105823 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2017)

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.
13/105,823 05/11/2011 Do-Hyung Ryu P59274 4031
8439 7590 02/24/2017
ROBERT E. BUSHNELL & LAW FIRM
2029 K STREET NW
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1004
EXAMINER
EURICE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/24/2017 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):
rebushnell @ aol. com
mail @ rebushnell. com
info @ rebu shnell. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DO-HYUNG RYU
Appeal 2015-003101
Application 13/105,823
Technology Center 2600
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Oral arguments were heard on
February 15, 2017. A transcript of that hearing will be placed in the record
in due time.
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Samsung Display Co.,
Ltd. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-003101
Application 13/105,823
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosed “invention relates to an organic light emitting
diode (OLED) display device . . . and more particularly, to an organic light
emitting diode display device using an n-channel field effect transistor as a
driving transistor.” Spec. 12. Claim 17, which is illustrative, reads as
follows:
17. A method of driving an organic light emitting diode
display device, the method comprising:
when a threshold voltage of a driving transistor for
driving an organic light emitting diode shifts to a negative
voltage value,
providing a high-level voltage of a first power source to
an anode electrode of the organic light emitting diode;
providing a low-level voltage of a second power source,
which is a predetermined positive shift voltage, to a cathode
electrode of the organic light emitting diode; and
writing data to the organic light emitting diode by
applying a positive data voltage which is set at a lower level
compared to the low-level voltage of the second power source
to a gate electrode of the driving transistor.
Claims 17—19 are rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Ogawa (JP 2008-151946 A, published July 3, 2008)2. See Final Act. 2—
6.
Claims 1—2 and 7—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogawa and Kwon (US 2009/0051628 Al, published Feb.
26, 2009; herein “Kwon”). See Final Act. 6—15.
2 The Examiner cites to an English-language abstract and an English-
language machine translation of Ogawa dated April 14, 2014.
2
Appeal 2015-003101
Application 13/105,823
Claims 3—6 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogawa, Kwon, and Westfield et al. (US 6,504,489 Bl,
issued Jan. 7, 2003; herein “Westfield”). See Final Act. 16—21.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Sept. 19, 2014; “Reply Br.” filed Jan. 16, 2015) and the
Specification (“Spec.” filed May 11, 2011, amended Jan. 2, 2014) for the
positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed
April 22, 2014) and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” mailed Nov. 20, 2014) for
the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue3 presented by Appellant’s arguments is as
follows: Does Ogawa teach or suggest “providing a low-level voltage of a
second power source, which is a predetermined positive shift voltage, to a
cathode electrode of the organic light emitting diode” (emphasis added), as
recited in claim 17?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner maps the second power source recited in claim 17 to
Ogawa’s power supply circuit 320 (Ogawa Fig. 5) having a voltage level
CV. Final Act. 3 (citing Ogawa 10, 12, 20, Fig. 1). The Examiner maps
the recited “predetermined positive shift voltage” to Ogawa’s teaching of a
3 Appellant’s arguments present additional issues. However, because the
identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional
issues.
3
Appeal 2015-003101
Application 13/105,823
transition from the value of CV from CVa (-3.5V) to CVb (0V). Ans. 3
(citing Ogawa Figs. 1, 5, 7).
The Examiner construes claim 17 as follows:
“[A] predetermined positive shift” indicates changing from one
level to another in a positive-going direction, directly implying a
shift between two different levels and saying nothing about the
sign of either of the two levels (for instance, a shift from -3V to
-2V is a positive shift, as is a shift from +2V to +3V).
Ans. 2—3.
Appellant contends that in Ogawa
the cathode supply voltage can be set only to a 0 V or to a negative
voltage potential lower than 0V.
Therefore, Ogawa . . . fails to teach or suggest “providing
a low-level voltage of a second power source, which is a
predetermined positive shift voltage, to a cathode electrode of the
organic light emitting diode”.
App. Br. 18 (referring to Ogawa 38, 45—46, 51—52); see also Ogawa Fig
5. Appellant explains the Examiner’s claim construction is erroneous
because “[i]t is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that, in the instant
application, the recited ‘positive shift voltage’ refers to a positive voltage
potential higher than 0V.” Reply Br. 6. We agree with Appellant.
Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de novo. Cordis
Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We
note as an initial matter that pending claim 17 is identical to claim 17 as
included in the originally filed Specification. Compare App. Br. (Claims
App’x) 35, with Spec. 32—33. Claim 17 recites a “positive data voltage
which is set at a lower level compared to the low-level voltage of the second
power source” (emphases added). The data voltage is not recited to be a
“shift” voltage. It is simple logic that in order for the data voltage to be both
4
Appeal 2015-003101
Application 13/105,823
positive (greater than 0V) and lower than the voltage of the second power
source, the voltage of the second power source must also be positive (greater
than 0V). Therefore, we agree with the Appellant that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of claim 17 requires that the voltage of the second
power source, i.e. the “predetermined positive shift voltage,” must be a
positive voltage, i.e., have a positive sign, and not merely represent a shift in
the voltage of the second power source in a positive direction. Furthermore,
in view of our claim construction, we agree that the Examiner has not
demonstrated that Ogawa teaches or suggests a voltage of a second power
source that is “a predetermined positive shift voltage.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 17 and claims
18—20, which depend from claim 17. Claim 1 recites limitations similar to
those discussed above, and was rejected based on a similar mapping to
Ogawa (compare Final Act. 6—8 with id. 2—5). For substantially the same
reasons as discussed for claim 17, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1
and claims 2—16, which depend from claim 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5