Universal Display Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2020

2019000894 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020)

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.
14/573,762 12/17/2014 Vadim ADAMOVICH UDC-946US 4885
108576 7590 05/04/2020
Morris & Kamlay LLP / UDC
Morris & Kamlay LLP
1911 N. Fort Myer Drive
Suite 1050
Arlington, VA 22209
EXAMINER
GYAWALI, BIPIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2020 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):
aaron@morriskamlay.com
docket@morriskamlay.com
pto@morriskamlay.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VADIM ADAMOVICH, LECH MICHALSKI,
MICHAEL STUART WEAVER, and MICHAEL O’CONNOR
Appeal 2019-000894
Application 14/573,762
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject Claims 1–6, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 29–32, 44,
45, 54, and 59. Claims 7–11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25–28, 33–43, 46–
53, and 55–58 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as
Universal Display Corporation and Kent State University. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000894
Application 14/573,762
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and device for operating an
organic light emitting device using a variable driving scheme. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operating an OLED display device, the
method comprising:
receiving an input signal indicating an apparent
luminance to be generated by at least one OLED in the display
during a given frame time; and
providing a first drive signal to the at least one OLED,
the first drive signal comprising either a constant level to drive
a constant luminance corresponding to the apparent luminance
indicated by the input signal or a waveform specifying an
output for the at least one OLED during the given frame time,
wherein for the waveform the first drive signal produces a
momentary luminance greater than the apparent luminance for
at least a portion of the given frame time, the portion being less
than a full given frame time, and
wherein the constant level is provided until the OLED
display device reaches a predetermined age, and thereafter the
waveform is provided.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Lynch et al. US 2013/0321361 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
Wacyk et al. US 2011/0080441 A1 Apr. 7, 2011
Cok US 7,088,051 B1 Aug. 8, 2006
Oshiyama et al. US 2013/0328037 A1 Dec. 12, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 29, 32, 44, 45, 54, and 59 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch in view of
Wacyk in further view of Cok.
Appeal 2019-000894
Application 14/573,762
3
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lynch in view of Wacyk in view of Cok in further view of
Oshiyama.
OPINION
1. Claims 1–6, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 29, 32, 44, 45, 54, and 59
a. Claims 1–5, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 29–32, 44, 45, 54, and 59
Appellant argues Claims 1–5, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 29–32, 44, 45,
54, and 59 as a group and Claim 6 separately. Appeal Br. 4, 6. We select
Claim 1 and decide the appeal with respect to the group on the basis of the
selected Claim 1.2
Appellant’s invention is directed towards a method and system for
operating organic light emitting devices (OLEDs) using variable driving
schemes. Spec. 3. According to the Specification, depending on the age of
an OLED, the OLED is “driven at a constant luminance corresponding to the
apparent luminance indicated by an input signal” or “driven at a higher
luminance for a portion of a frame than the luminance indicated for that
frame by an input signal.” Spec. 63, 66. Claim 1 recites these salient
features. For example, Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein the constant
level is provided until the OLED display device reaches a predetermined
age, and thereafter the waveform is provided.”
In this light, Appellant argues, “Lynch in view of Wacyk and Cok do
not teach ‘the constant level is provided until the OLED display device
reaches a predetermined age, and thereafter the waveform is provided.’”
Appeal Br. 4. Appellant contends Lynch teaches “making adjustments to the

2 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-000894
Application 14/573,762
4
driving strength of a signal” and “not adjusting the type of signal.” Appeal
Br. 5. Appellant further contends that Lynch, Wacyk, and Cok collectively
teach “1) adjusting a driving signal strength according to age of an OLED,
2) adjusting a pulse width of the driving signal according to age of the
OLED, 3) use of a constant driving signal in a conventional OLED display,
and 4) applying a pulse driving signal in order to increase luminance of
OLED.” Appeal Br. 5.
Appellant, however, further contends that the combined teachings still
do not “teach the specific operational sequence of providing a drive signal at
a constant level, then switching the signal from the constant level to a
waveform at a time based on the age of the device, and continuing to drive
with a waveform signal thereafter.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant additionally
argues, “[n]ot a single reference teaches the benefit of starting with a DC
and switching to a pulse mode as discovered by the Appellant.” Appeal Br.
5, 6. Responding to the Advisory Action, Appellant further contends, “the
issue that Appellant raises is not whether the proposed combination is
possible, but instead that, even if combined as proposed by the Examiner,
the cited references do not teach all of the claimed features.” Appeal Br. 6
(emphasis maintained).
In response, the Examiner finds that Lynch teaches an OLED that is
driven with a driving signal whose strength is adjusted based on the OLED’s
age and temperature, where the strength is adjusted using a “pulse width
modulation technique.” Ans. 4. Similarly, the Examiner finds that Wacyk
also teaches driving an OLED with a driving signal using pulse width
modulation, where the driving signal is adjusted based on the OLED’s
temperature. Ans. 4. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that
“one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential
Appeal 2019-000894
Application 14/573,762
5
solution of applying a pulse width driving technique over the constant
driving technique in the conventional OLED display when the brightness of
image [sic] starts deteriorating due to aging with a reasonable expectation of
success.” Ans. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Specifically, we agree
with Appellant in that “Lynch, Wacyk, and Cok collectively teach ‘1)
adjusting a driving signal strength according to age of an OLED, 2)
adjusting a pulse width of the driving signal according to age of the OLED,
3) use of a constant driving signal in a conventional OLED display, and 4)
applying a pulse driving signal in order to increase luminance of OLED.’”
Based on our review, we do not find that the Examiner has identified within
Lynch, Wacyk, and Cok a teaching or suggestion of a “specific operational
sequence of providing a drive signal at a constant level, then switching the
signal from the constant level to a waveform at a time based on the age of
the device, and continuing to drive with a waveform signal thereafter.”
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 1–5, 12, 14, 15,
18, 21, 24, 29–32, 44, 45, 54, and 59.
b. Claim 6
Even though Appellant has argued for Claim 6 separately, Claim 6,
because it depends from Claim 1 through intervening Claim 2, incorporates
all of the limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of Claim 6 for the same reasons discussed above for Claim 1.
2. Claims 30 and 31
Even though Claims 30 and 31 have been rejected with a different
combination of references (see Final Act. 9), Appellant argues Claims 30
and 31 as grouped with Claims 1–5, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 24, 29, 32, 44, 45,
54, and 59. Appeal Br. 4, 6. As noted in the previous section (see supra at
Appeal 2019-000894
Application 14/573,762
6
3), we selected Claim 1 and decided the appeal with respect to the group on
the basis of the selected Claim 1. Additionally, the Examiner has not
identified how the teachings of Oshiyama remedy the noted deficiency in the
base combination. Therefore, based on the same reasoning set forth for
Claim 1 above, we also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
Claims 30 and 31.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 12, 14,
15, 18, 21, 24,
29, 32, 44, 45,
54, 59
103 Lynch, Wacyk, Cok 1–6, 12, 14,
15, 18, 21,
24, 29, 32,
44, 45, 54,
59
30, 31 103 Lynch, Wacyk, Cok,
Oshiyama
30, 31
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 12, 14,
15, 18, 21,
24, 29–32,
44, 45, 54,
59
REVERSED