Ex Parte Vardeny et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11404646 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZEEV VALENTINE VARDENY, CHUANZHEN LIU,
and VLADIMIR KAMAEV
____________

Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
perforated-electrode organic light-emitting diodes. The Examiner has
rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Feb. 12, 2010), the Answer (mailed Apr.
29, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed June 29, 2010). We have considered in
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

2
this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to perforated-electrode organic light-emitting
diodes.
Claims 1-15 are on appeal. Claims 1 and 14 are independent. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, reproduced below:
1. An organic light-emitting diode (OLED) structure,
comprising:
an organic semiconductor polymer layer sandwich
between two electrodes; and
wherein at least one of the electrodes is perforated.

The Examiner has entered the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yoneda1 and Kim.2 (Ans. 4-8).
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Yoneda,
Kim, and Parthasarathy.3 (Ans. 8).
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Yoneda, Kim, and Moroz.4 (Ans. 8-9).

1 Yoneda (US 2001/0026123 A1, Oct. 4, 2001).
2 Kim (US 2004/0033388 A1, Feb. 19, 2004).
3 Parthasarathy (US 6,639,357 B1, Oct. 28, 2003).
4 Alexander Moroz, Metallo-Dielectric Diamond and Zinc-Blende Photonic
Crystals, 66 PHYSICAL REV. B 115109 (2002).
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

3
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CLAIMS 1, 3-10, AND 12-15
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Yoneda and Kim. (Ans. 4-8). Appellants contend
that Yoneda does not teach or suggest an OLED. Appellants contend that the
thin film transistor (TFT) of Yoneda includes semiconductor diode
junctions, but that Yoneda’s electroluminescent (light-emitting) structure
contains no diodes. (App. Br. 3). Appellants further contend that Yoneda
does not teach or suggest an organic semiconductor polymer layer. Rather,
the light-emitting layer is composed of Bebq2(10-benzo[h]quinolinol-
beryllium complex) containing a Quinacridone delivative. The first hole
transfer layer comprises TPD: triphenylamine dimer (4,4',4"-tris (3-
methylphenylphenylamino) triphenylamine). The second hole transfer layer
comprises MTDATA(4,4'-bis (3-methylphenylphenylamino) biphenyl), and
the electron transfer layer is also comprised of Bebq2. (App. Br. 4).
Appellants contend that the compounds of Yoneda’s electroluminescent
layer are not organic polymers. Appellants further contend that the
conjugated polymers of Kim, suggested by the Examiner, are not
accompanied by a reasonable expectation of success because:
[l]ight-emitting layers must be adjacent other layers having
specific compositions to facilitate light emission. EL layers
need layers to inject electrons and holes which recombine to
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

4
emit exitons[.] Appellant’s structure uses a polymer layer
between two metal electrodes, but absent transfer layers of the
type disclosed by Yoneda. Just because a layer “emits light”
does not mean that it will do so in the absence of a supporting
environment.
(App. Br. 4 (citation omitted)). Appellants contend that the materials of a
light-emitting layer are not chosen for their mechanical properties, as
suggested by the Examiner, but are chosen for their electro-chemical
properties. Appellants further contend that Yoneda, Kim, and the application
all use a glass substrate which imparts mechanical rigidity. Therefore, the
mechanical stiffness of the polymer, suggested by the Examiner as a reason
to combine Kim with Yoneda, is irrelevant. (App. Br. 5-6).
Regarding claims 1, 4-9, and 12-15, the Examiner answers that the
Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology (1996) defines
“diode” as “a two-element active electronic device containing an anode and
a cathode, characterized by the ability to pass an electronic current more
easily from cathode to anode than from anode to cathode.” (Ans. 9). The
Examiner further finds that Yoneda, paragraph [0009], clearly states that
“holes injected from the anode electrode 28 and the electrons injected from
the cathode electrode 23 are recombined inside the luminous layer 25.” In
other words, electric current (or electrons) are passed from the cathode to the
anode, which creates a “diode.” Therefore, the light emitting structure of
Yoneda (the cathode, electroluminescent layer, and the anode) comprises a
diode. Further, because the light emitting layer of Yoneda is organic, the
light emitting structure is considered an OLED (Ans. 9-10).
The Examiner finds that Kim teaches an organic semiconductor
polymer layer. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

5
Kim discloses that the use of electron- and/or hole-transporting layers is
optional. (Ans. 11).
With respect to claims 14 and 15, the Examiner finds that Appellants’
argument that the light emitted by the Yoneda structure goes through the
anode and not the cathode is moot because that limitation is not claimed.
(Ans. 10)
Appellants’ Reply contends that Yoneda’s structure requires doping in
order to be a diode. (Reply 1).
The issues presented with respect to these rejections are: (1) whether
the electroluminescent structure of Yoneda comprises a diode; and (2)
whether the electroluminescent organic polymer of Kim is properly
combinable with the electroluminescent structure of Yoneda.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-15
The Specification discloses that “[i]n the simplest form of organic
light emitting diodes (OLEDs) the active organic semiconductor is
sandwiched between two metallic electrodes.” (Spec. 1:14-15). Appellants’
Figure 3A appears consistent with Figures 1 and 2 of Yoneda, with the
Examiner’s finding that Yoneda discloses an OLED, and with the definition
of one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the definition of “diode”
set forth in the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology, cited
by the Examiner. We, therefore adopt as our own, the Examiner’s finding
that Yoneda teaches an OLED (Ans. 4).
We also adopt the Examiner’s finding that Kim teaches a light-
emitting, organic semiconductor polymer layer. Appellants do not contest
this finding. Contrary to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

6
Kim discloses that the use of electron- and/or hole-transporting layers is
optional. (Ans. 11). We, therefore, find no error in the Examiner’s
suggestion that Kim’s light-emitting, organic semiconductor polymer layer
may be combined with Yoneda’s OLED.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, we adopt the Examiner’s finding
that Appellants’ argument that the light emitted by the Yoneda structure
goes through the anode and not the cathode is moot because that limitation is
not claimed. (Ans. 10).
Appellants’ contention that the structure of Yoneda must be doped in
order to be considered as a diode is not persuasive because Appellants have
not provided any evidence for this contention and because the definition of
“diode” set forth by the Academic Press Dictionary of Science and
Technology does not require doping.
Claim 3
Appellants contend that claim 3 recites that the perforated electrode is
at least semi-transparent and the term “semi-transparent” refers to the
material itself and not to a material shaped in a comblike, meshlike, or
gridlike pattern. (App. Br. 5).
The Examiner considers the limitation of claim 3 to require the
electrode to be semi-transparent, not the material of the electrode (Ans. 12).
The claim does not state, “the material of the perforated electrode is at least
semi-transparent,” but simply states, “the perforated electrode is at least
semi-transparent.” Therefore, the Examiner considers paragraph [0019] of
Yoneda, which states, “the [perforated] electrode in, for example, a
comblike, meshlike or gridlike form can externally emit a sufficient amount
of light,” to teach the limitation of claim 3.
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

7
We find that the Specification distinguishes the intensity of light
transmitted through the material of the electrode, from the intensity of light
transmitted through the perforated material:
The PL spectra of MEH-PPV spin-casted on the two A1
films are shown transmission and reflection geometries in
Figure 2. The PL spectra (that are not normalized) show typical
phonon replicas (0-n), and indicate that a good match exists
with the transmission maxima of the perforated A1 film (Figure
1A) [25], and that of the Au top electrode (Figure 1B). The PL
intensity measured in transmission is relatively strong for the
perforated A1 electrode due to the match with the anomalous
T(λ). On the contrary, the PL intensity measured through the
control A1 film (not shown) is much smaller (by about two
orders of magnitude).
(Spec. 7:15-22 (brackets in original)). In view of this disclosure, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 10
Appellants contend that claim 10 adds the limitation that the
perforated electrode act as a “patterned, periodic two-dimensional (2D)
subwavelength hole array.” Appellants further contend that the Examiner’s
finding that Yoneda teaches that “the perforated electrode acts as a
patterned, periodic two-dimensional (2D) hole array” is not relevant because
the Examiner has read out the limitation “subwavelength hole array” from
the claims. (App. Br. 5-6). The Examiner finds that Yoneda teaches the
perforated electrode acts as a patterned, periodic two-dimensional (2D) hole
array.” (Ans. 7). The Examiner has examined claim 10 on the merits, but we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has read out of the claims the term
“subwavelength,” assuming it to be a relative term of degree “with no
corresponding comparative term within the claim.” The Examiner states that
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

8
the claim has been treated “assuming subwavelength refers to different
colors within a pixel” (Ans. 3).
The Specification explicitly defines the term “subwavelength hole
array” such that its meaning would be clear to a person of skill in the art:
On a smooth metal-dielectric interface, light cannot
efficiently couple to the SP excitations, which are the
elementary excitations of the metal surface, because
conservation of energy, E and momentum, k are not obeyed [6].
On an (E, k) plot the SP dispersion curve lies below that of the
electro-magnetic waves in vacuum [6]. But in a metal film that
is perforated with a 2D periodic array of holes, the periodicity
allows grating coupling of the SP to light [7]; this coupling
results in surface plasmon polariton (SPP) excitations. The
lattice periodicity promotes zone folding of the SP dispersion
relation, which results in the formation of SP band structure that
makes it possible for light to directly couple to SP excitations.
Indeed it was recently found [7-18] that the optical transmission
through subwavelength hole arrays fabricated on optically thick
metallic films is enhanced at resonance wavelengths (or
maxima), where light couples to the film’s SPP excitations. If
these maxima overlap with the photoluminescence (PL) band of
the active organic layer of an OLEO, then it might be possible
to extract more EL light out of the device [5, 19-21] without
compromising the current injection capability of the patterned
electrode.
(Spec. 2:3-17 (brackets in original)). The Specification further defines the
term as it applies to the claimed invention: “The periodic hole array with
square symmetry consisted of a 80 nm thick aluminum film on a glass
substrate with subwavelength hole size of about 150 nm and lattice constant
periodicity, a0 of about 300 nm (Figure 1A inset).” (Spec. 4:24-27).
Moreover, “[i]n the standard aperture theory of Bethe [26], the transmission
through a sub-wavelength aperture follows (d/λ)4 dependence due to
diffraction, where d is the hole diameter.” (Spec. 6:14-16 (referring to H. A.
Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

9
Bethe, Theory of Diffraction by Small Holes, 66 PHYSICAL REV. 163 (1944))
(second brackets in original)).
We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would cognize a term
from standard aperture theory. Because the art cited by the Examiner does
not teach or suggest the claimed “subwavelength hole array,” we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 10.

CLAIM 2
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
The Examiner has rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yoneda, Kim, and Parthasarathy. (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds
that Yoneda and Kim teach that one electrode, the anode, may be perforated
to permit the passage of light and that Parthasarathy teaches that both
electrodes, the top and bottom, may be transparent to emit light from
opposite sides. Thus it would have been obvious to perforate both the
Yoneda electrodes to permit the passage of light from both sides of the
device. (Ans. 8). Appellants contend that Yoneda seeks to avoid emission
through the back, transistor, side and that fabrication would be difficult.
(App. Br. 5). The Examiner answers that Parthasarathy provides the
motivation for dual emission and that Yoneda provides the means, i.e.,
perforation. (Ans. 12).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive that the Examiner has erred.

Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

10
CLAIM 11
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
The Examiner has rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Yoneda, Kim, and Moroz. (Ans. 8-9). Appellants contend that
the Examiner’s motivation to combine Moroz, because the substituted
materials would “provide a clearer displayed picture,” is incomprehensible.
(App. Br. 6). In reply to Appellants’ Brief, the Examiner now finds that the
diamond and zinc blende photonic crystals of Moroz have applications as
“filters.” (Ans. 9). Appellants contend that this altered finding of motivation
to combine is still not relevant to the claims. (Reply 3). The Examiner finds
that Moroz teaches that diamond and zinc-blende photonic crystals “are
useful as color filters.” (Ans. 14 (citing Moroz, p. 1, par. 1)). We do not
agree with the Examiner’s reading of Moroz. The cited passage of Moroz
reads:
There is a common belief that, in the near future, photonic
crystals systems will allow us to perform many functions with
light that ordinary crystals do with electrons. In addition to
numerous potential technological applications (filters, …
photonic crystals also promise to become a laboratory for
testing fundamental processes.
(Moroz, p. 1, par. 1) (emphasis added). Moroz is not describing the state of
an existing technology. Rather, the reference is clearly speculating as to a
potential future state that may subsequently permit experimentation. The
Moroz reference would not convey to a person of skill in the art a reasonable
expectation of success that Moroz’ diamond and zinc-blende photonic
crystals could be substituted in place of the claimed perforated electrodes.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 11.

Appeal 2010-010356
Application 11/404,646

11
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 12-15.
We reverse the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 11.
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-IN-PART

babc