Ex Parte Tsai

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2011

11002831 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2011)

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.
11/002,831 12/01/2004 Tze-Chien Tsai 250122-2060 8372
24504 7590 01/12/2011
THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP
600 GALLERIA PARKWAY, S.E.
STE 1500
ATLANTA, GA 30339-5994
EXAMINER
GUHARAY, KARABI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2889
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/12/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TZE-CHIEN TSAI
____________________

Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,8311
Technology Center 2800

____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is AU Optronics Corp.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-16 and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention relates to a top-emitting organic light emitting
diode (OLED) structure and fabrication method for manufacturing the
OLED structure. The OLED structure includes a first electrode formed on a
substrate. A dielectric layer including at least one first opening is formed on
the first electrode. An organic emission layer is formed on the dielectric
layer and fills the first opening. A second electrode including at least one
second opening aligned with the first opening is formed on the organic
emission layer (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A top-emitting organic light emitting diode (OLED) structure,
comprising:
a substrate; a first electrode formed on the substrate;
a dielectric layer comprising at least one first opening formed on the
first electrode;
an organic emission layer formed on the dielectric layer filling in the
first opening; an electron-transporting layer overlying the organic emission
layer; and
a second electrode comprising at least one second opening, wherein
the second opening at least exposes a portion of the electron-transporting
layer.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Jones US 6,069,443 May 30, 2000
Fuchigami US 7,091,659 B2 Aug. 15, 2006

2
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

Claims 1, 6-10, 15-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Jones.
Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jones.3
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jones in view of Fuchigami.4

ISSUE
Appellant contends that Jones fails to disclose “a second electrode
comprising at least one second opening, wherein the second opening at
least exposes a portion of the electron-transporting layer” (App. Br. 6).
Appellant argues that the Examiner misinterprets the scope of Jones in
finding that layer 191 comprising channel 17 is a second electrode
comprising at least one second opening (App. Br. 6-7). Appellant asserts
that the top electrode layer 182 and the OLED layer 18 disclosed in Jones
are buried by the first passivation layer 191 and the second passivation layer
192 and that the opening 17 does not expose a portion of the electron-
transporting layer 182 (Reply Br. 3-4). Appellant further asserts that
element 191 is a passivation layer and one skilled in the art would not use a
passivation layer as an electrode (App. Br. 6-7).

3 Appellant does not make a proper recitation of all of the grounds of
rejection by excluding the two rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (App. Br.
4). Although the Examiner does not correct the Appellant’s recitation of the
grounds of rejection, the Examiner does recite both rejections in his Answer
(Ans. 2 and 5-6).

4 Id.
3
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

Appellant contends further that the Examiner fails to give the term
“expose” its broadest reasonable interpretation in concluding that the term
“expose” does not mean “open to view” (App. Br. 7-9). Appellant argues
that even though the Specification only discloses an embodiment that
includes a passivation layer 290 overlying the second electrode 280 which
fills the second opening 282, the interpretation of the claim limitation at
issue is not affected (App. Br. 9).
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following dispositive
issue: Do the references disclose a top-emitting organic light emitting diode
(OLED) structure that comprises “a second electrode comprising at least one
second opening, wherein the second opening at least exposes a portion of the
electron-transporting layer”?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. A second electrode 280, serving as a cathode 280, is disposed
on the organic emission layer 270 (Spec. 5: 17-20). Layer 280 includes an
opening 282 which exposes electron transporting layer 270 (Spec. 5: 17-20).
A protective layer 290 overlies cathode 280 and the second opening 282
(Spec. 6:3-5).
Jones
2. Jones discloses an OLED structure that includes a substrate 2
having a first electrode layer 11 (Fig. 1; col. 4, ll. 18-28). A dielectric layer
or first insulator layer 13 having a first opening (that serves as a pixel area
4
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

14) is applied in overlying relation to the first electrode layer 11 (Fig. 1; col.
4, ll. 66- col. 5, l. 17). Recess channel 17 is etched in an overlying layer 16
and second insulator layer 15 and is formed above pixel area 14 within the
first insulator layer 13 (col. 6, ll. 11-20). An OLED layer 18 is deposited
within the channel 17 covering pixel area 14 and filling the first opening of
the insulator layer 13 (Fig.1; col. 6, ll. 21-27). A top electrode layer 182 is
applied over OLED layer 18 and a first and second passivation layer (191
and 192) are applied over top electrode layer 182 (Fig. 1, col. 6, ll. 32-48).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single
prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency
each and every limitation of the claimed invention. 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).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35
U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications 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 properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art.
In an appeal from a rejection for anticipation, the Appellant must
explain which limitations are not found in the reference. See Gechter v.
5
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the
Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation
basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and
satisfactory explanations for such findings.")(emphasis added). See also In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Obviousness
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1, 6-10, 15-16, and 18
Independent claim 1 recites a top-emitting organic light emitting
diode (OLED) structure that comprises “a second electrode comprising at
least one second opening, wherein the second opening at least exposes a
portion of the electron-transporting layer.” Independent claim 10 recites a
claim limitation similar in scope.
We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Although we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the
passivation layer 191 may be an electrode, we do not agree that the
passivation layer 191 comprises a second opening that exposes a portion of
top electrode layer 182 (Ans. 7, FF 2). Jones discloses an OLED structure
that includes a substrate 2, a first electrode layer 11, a first insulator layer 13
6
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

having a first opening, an OLED layer 18 that fills the first opening, a top
electrode layer 182 and a first and second passivation layer 191 and 192 (FF
2). The top electrode layer 182 is an electron transporting layer, as required
by the claim (Ans. 3, FF 2). The first passivation layer 191, serving as the
second electrode, overlies the top electrode layer 182 but does not include an
opening that exposes top electrode layer 182 as required by the claims (FF
2). We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that channel 17 serves as
an opening in layer 191 that exposes top electrode layer 182 (Ans. 3; FF 2).
Rather, channel 17 serves as a recess in overlying layer 16 and second
insulator layer 15 and is formed above pixel area 14 within the first insulator
layer 13 (FF 2).
The Specification discloses that the second electrode 280 includes an
opening 282 which exposes electron transporting layer 270 (FF 1).
Protective layer 290 overlies cathode 280 and the second opening 282 (FF
1). Although the Specification discloses that the protective layer 290 fills
the second opening 282, it does not change the interpretation of the term
“expose” (App. Br. 6-7 and Reply Br. 3-4). The Specification and the claim
require that the second electrode must comprise “at least one second
opening, wherein the second opening at least exposes a portion of the
electron-transporting layer (270).”
Therefore, we find that Jones does not disclose a top-emitting organic
light emitting diode (OLED) structure that comprises “a second electrode
comprising at least one second opening, wherein the second opening at least
exposes a portion of the electron-transporting layer.” As a result, we will
not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of independent claims 1 and 10
and that of dependent claims 6-9, 15-16, and 18.
7
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

Claims 2, 3, 11, and 12
We reversed supra the rejection of parent claims 1 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Jones. Appellants argue that claims 2, 3, 11,
and 12 are allowable because they depend from parent claims 1 and 10
(Reply Br. 4). We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 2, 3, 11, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as be unpatentable over Jones for the same reasons
expressed with respect to parent claims 1 and 10.
Claims 4-5, 13 and 14
We reversed supra the rejection of parent claims 1 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Jones. Appellants argue that claims 4-5, 13
and 14 are allowable because they depend from parent claims 1 and 10
(Reply Br. 4). We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 4-5, 13 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as be unpatentable over Jones in view of Fuchigami
for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claims 1 and 10.

CONCLUSION
The references do not disclose the references disclose a top-emitting
organic light emitting diode (OLED) structure that comprises “a second
electrode comprising at least one second opening, wherein the second
opening at least exposes a portion of the electron-transporting layer.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-16 and 18 is reversed.

8
Appeal 2009-008075
Application 11/002,831

REVERSED

ELD

THOMAS, KAYDEN, HORSTEMEYER & RISLEY, LLP
600 GALLERIA PARKWAY, S.E.
STE 1500
ATLANTA, GA 30339-5994
9