Ex Parte JANG et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 2019

14884952 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/884,952 10/16/2015 9629 7590 03/28/2019 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (WA) 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jaeseung JANG 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 065543-5434 6706 EXAMINER TRAN,DZUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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): karen.catalano@morganlewis.com patents@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAESEUNG JANG, JAEIL SONG, and DONGHYUK KIM Appeal2018-005587 Application 14/884,952 Technology Center 2800 Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, BRIAND. RANGE, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification filed Oct. 16, 2015 ("Spec."); Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 25, 2017 ("Non-Final"); Appeal Brief filed Nov. 27, 2017 ("Br."); and Examiner's Answer dated Mar. 14, 2018 ("Ans."). Appeal2018-005587 Application 14/884,952 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I34(a) from the Examiner's decision twice rejecting claims 1, 7, 20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Song (US 2014/0124766 Al, pub. May 8, 2014) and Radu (US 2007/0228364 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007), and claims 2---6, 9, 21, 3 and 24-- 29 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Song, Radu, and Ma (US 2013/00069044 Al, pub. Mar. 21, 2013). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. The invention relates to an organic light emitting display device. Spec. ,r 2. Organic light emitting display devices are said to be advantageous over other types of panel displays, such as plasma displays or inorganic EL displays, "in that they can be formed on a flexible transparent substrate such as plastic, can be driven at relatively low voltage, less power consumption, and excellent color sensitivity." Id. ,r 4. Organic light emitting display devices are formed of organic materials stacked between an anode and a cathode, and operate as follows: When a voltage is applied to the organic light emitting display device, holes are injected from the anode, and electrons are injected from the cathode. The injected charges move to the opposite electrode according to the energy levels of the organic layers, and are combined together in a light emitting layer of organic materials to form excitons. When the excitons fall to the ground state, they decay into thermal energy or emit light. 2 The Appellant is the Applicant, LG Display Co., Ltd, also identified as the real party in interest. Br. 2. 3 The Examiner does not include claim 21 in the statement of the rejection, but addresses this claim in the body of the rejection. Non-Final 8, 14--15. The Appellant also identifies claim 21 as subject to this ground of rejection. Br. 4. 2 Appeal2018-005587 Application 14/884,952 Id. ,r 5. At the time of the invention, the use of two types of hosts and one type of dopant for the light emitting layer was known in the art, the materials for the two types of host being chosen in consideration of the properties of each charge of hole-type and electron type. Id. According to the Specification, a drawback of known devices that utilize two types of hosts and one type of dopant "is that a light emission area formed between a hole transport layer and a light emitting layer causes an interface degradation and an exciton-polaron interaction leads to a lifetime reduction." Id. ,r 6. The inventive organic light emitting display device is said to be capable of improving the lifetime of the device. Id. ,r 8. Independent claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below. 1. An organic light emitting display device, compnsmg: a first light emitting part between an anode and a cathode, the first light emitting part having a first light emitting layer; and a second light emitting part between the first light emitting part and the cathode, the second light emitting part having a second light emitting layer and a third light emitting layer, wherein the second light emitting layer includes a hole- type host and a first electron-type host, and the third light emitting layer includes the first electron-type host and a second electron-type host, and wherein an occupied volume ratio of the first electron- type host in the third light emitting layer is equal to or larger than an occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host in the third light emitting layer. Br. 9, Claims Appendix ( emphasis added). 3 Appeal2018-005587 Application 14/884,952 The Examiner finds Song discloses an organic light emitting display device as recited in claim 1 with the exception of "an occupied volume ratio of the first electron-type host in the third light emitting layer is equal to or larger than an occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host in the third light emitting layer." Non-Final 3--4 ( quoting claim 1 ). Radu, like Song, discloses an organic light emitting display device. See Radu ,r,r 5-8, claims 12, 17, 18. Radu discloses that one of the component layers of the device is organic/photoactive layer 130. Id. ,r 61. In one embodiment, photoactive layer 130 comprises an electroluminescent metal complex and first and second hosts. Id. ,r 73. Radu explicitly discloses an embodiment in which the ratio of the first host to the second host is 1: 1 to 5:1. Id. Radu discloses that "[t]he choice of materials for each of the component layers is preferably determined by balancing the goals of providing a device with high device efficiency with device operational lifetime considerations, fabrication time and complexity factors and other considerations appreciated by persons skilled in the art." Id. ,r 69. According to Radu, "determining optimal components, component configurations, and compositional identities would be routine to those of ordinary skill of in the art." Id. Based on Radu's disclosure, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have modified Song's third light emitting layer such that the first electron-type host was equal to or larger than an occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host in order to provide high efficiency and operational lifetime to Song's organic light emitting display device. Non-Final 4. The Examiner makes similar findings with respect to independent claim 24. See id. at 8-9. The Examiner relies on 4 Appeal2018-005587 Application 14/884,952 Ma for a teaching of the claim 24 limitation "the first electron-type host and the second electron-type host have a different LUMO (lowest unoccupied molecular orbital) level from each other." See id. at 8 (quoting claim 24). The sole argument advanced by the Appellant is that the Examiner's motivation for modifying Song's third light emitting layer is not supported by Radu's disclosure. See generally Br. 4--7. The Appellant argues the disclosure in paragraph 69 of Radu (i.e., choice of materials and goals) relates to the explicitly identified layers, and does not pertain to photoactive layer 130, which is not mentioned in that paragraph. Id. at 6. The Appellant further argues Radu fails to disclose a relationship between high device efficiency/operational lifetime and occupied volume ratio of the first and second electron-type hosts in photoactive layer 130. Id. The Appellant's argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness determination as to independent claims 1 and 24 for the reasons explained in the Answer. See Ans. 3-5. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have read the goals listed in paragraph 69 of Radu as pertaining to only the explicitly-identified layers. See id. at 4. Radu mentions "other layers" throughout paragraph 69 and discloses that "choice of materials for each of the component layers" is determined by balancing the goals of the invention. Radu ,r 69 ( emphasis added). As found by the Examiner, photoactive layer 130 is one of Radu's component layers, and Radu explicitly discloses an embodiment in which the ratio of the first host to the second host in photoactive layer 130 is 1: 1 to 5: 1. Ans. 4. Therefore, the Examiner had a reasonable basis for finding the ordinary artisan would have understood from Radu that the goals of high efficiency and operational lifetime could be achieved by a photoactive layer 5 Appeal2018-005587 Application 14/884,952 wherein the occupied volume ratio of the first electron-type host is equal to or larger than the occupied volume ratio of the second electron-type host in photoactive layer 130. See id.; Radu ,r,r 69, 73. Because the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness as to claims 1 and 24, we sustain the rejections of these claims. The Appellant does not present arguments in support of patentability of any dependent claims. See generally Br. 4--7. Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2-7, 9, 20-23, and 25- 29. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6