Ex Parte Skipor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2014

11770939 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/770,939 06/29/2007 Andrew F. Skipor CML05308T 7160
59767 7590 06/24/2014
QD VISION, INC.
29 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421
EXAMINER
SUCH, MATTHEWW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2896
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2014 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
____________

PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte QD VISION, INC.
(Application 11/770,939)
____________

Appeal 2012-006239
from Technology Center 2800
Matthew W. Such, Primary Examiner
____________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, JOHN G. NEW and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The appellant (QDVI) seeks relief from the final rejection of claims 1-16.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-006239 Application 11/770,939

2
OPINION
INTRODUCTION
QDVI's "disclosure generally relates to light emitting displays and more
particularly to free standing quantum dot light emitting display."1 Independent
claim 1 defines the invention as:2
An apparatus comprising:
a light emitting device including a plurality of quantum dots;
and
a first coil disposed contiguous to the light emitting device,
wherein an electric field generated by the first coil causes the plurality
of quantum dots to emit photons.
The examiner rejects all of the claims as having been obvious3 from the
disclosures of published patent applications of Jacobs4 and Colvin5 and of an
article by Tsutsui6 as follows:
· Claims 1, 2, 5 and 13-16 over the combined disclosures of Jacobs and
Tsutsui;7
· Claims 1-6 and 8-10 over the combined disclosures of Colvin and
Tsutsui;8 and
· Claims 7, 11 and 12 over the combined disclosures of Colvin, Jacobs and
Tsutsui.9

1 Spec. ¶ 1.
2 Br. 12 (claims app'x). In this opinion all claim language comes from the claims
appendix to the appeal brief. Cf. Ans. 4, item (7) (not objecting).
3 35 U.S.C. 103. All statutory citations refer to the statute in effect in 2011 (the
time of the final rejection and notice of appeal).
4 J.H.A.M. Jacobs et al., Lighting system, US 2009/0290332 A1.
5 A.E. Colvin Jr., Optical-based sensing devices, US 2004/0176669 A1.
6 T. Tsutsui, A light-emitting sandwich filling, 420 NATURE 752 (2002).
7 Final Rej. 2.
8 Id. at 7.
Appeal 2012-006239 Application 11/770,939

3
QDVI does not contest the patentability of the claims separately and relies
on its arguments for the first two rejections to overcome the third rejection.10 We
select claim 1 for purposes of reviewing the rejections.11
FACTS AND FINDINGS
Jacobs
[1] Jacobs discloses "a lighting system comprising a base part with at least one
primary coil, and at least one light module with a secondary coil adapted to
inductively interact with the primary coil."12
[2] Jacobs Figure 4 (right)
is a block diagram of a
resonant converter with
inductive coupling
between the primary and
secondary side.13
[3] The resonant converter 60
wirelessly transfers power from a direct-current power supply 30 to a light-
emitting diode (LED) 20 via inductive coupling between a primary coil 18 and
a secondary coil 26.14
[4] The LED may be an organic LED (OLED).15

9 Id. at 12.
10 Br. 10.
11 C.W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos, 702 F.3d 1371, 1378 n.2 & 1381 n.4 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
12 Jacobs ¶ 0001.
13 Id. ¶ 49.
14 Id. ¶¶ 59, 65 & 68-69.
15 Id. ¶¶ 41 & 154.
Appeal 2012-006239 Application 11/770,939

4
[5] The examiner finds that Jacobs does not teach "that the organic light
emitting device includes quantum dots as the photon emission source."16
Colvin
[6] Colvin discloses "electro-optical sensing devices for detecting the presence
or concentration of an analyte in a
liquid or gaseous medium."17
[7] Colvin Figure 1 (right) is a
schematic, section view of a
fluorescence-based sensor.18
[8] In relevant part, the figure
shows an inductor 40, which
powers a radiation source 18, e.g., an LED.19
[9] The examiner finds that Colvin does not teach the use of an LED with
quantum dots as the photo-emission source.20
Tsutsui
[10] Tsutsui is a review of a paper on "the fabrication of high-efficiency organic
light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in which the light-emitting centres are cadmium-
selenium (CdSe) nanocrystals, or quantum dots."21
[11] A person having ordinary skill in the art would have known that OLEDs
have many advantages, and were already commercially used, but also had as a

16 Final Rej. 3.
17 Colvin ¶ 3.
18 Id. ¶ 19.
19 Id. ¶ 92.
20 Final Rej. at 7.
21 Tsutsui at 752.
Appeal 2012-006239 Application 11/770,939

5
drawback that the emission spectra are very broad so "it is difficult to get, for
example, pure red light emitted with high quantum efficiency."22
[12] Tsutsui explains as background that:23
Some inorganic nanocrystals emit visible light with sharp emission
spectra that are less than 30 nm [(full-width at half maximum
(FWHM)]. The nanocrystals are in effect quantum dots and confine
charge so well within their small volume that a high quantum
efficiency, exceeding 50%, is possible. It might be expected, then,
that quantum dots incorporated in organic LEDs would make
excellent emission centres. In fact, electroluminescence has been
observed by simply mixing inorganic nanocrystals with π-conjugated
polymers, but the emission efficiency was far lower than that of
conventional polymer LEDs.
[13] Tsutsui Figure 1 (right) shows
a quantum-dot LED as described
in the paper, in which "a layer of
cadmium–selenium nanocrystals,
or quantum dots, is sandwiched
between layers of electron-
transporting and hole-
transporting organic materials[, such that a]n applied electric field causes
electrons and holes to move into the nanocrystal layer, where they are captured
in the quantum dots and recombine, emitting photons[, resulting in a] spectrum
of photon emission [that] is narrow, characterized by its full width at half the
maximum value."24

22 Id.
23 Id. at 753 (endnotes omitted).
24 Id.
Appeal 2012-006239 Application 11/770,939

6
[14] Tsutsui describes the device in the paper as "an organic LED with a single
layer of CdSe quantum dots sandwiched between organic thin films (Fig. 1)."25
[15] Tsutsui reports that the authors of the paper have shown that the addition of
the nanocrystals improves efficiency and stability and provides uniform
spectrum that can be tuned during fabrication.26
We understand Tsutsui to teach that the paper under review provides an
improved method for integrating nanocrystals into an OLED that minimizes the
known drawbacks the art had experienced.27
[16] The examiner finds that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have
appreciated the advantages of using the nanocrystals in an OLED.28
ANALYSIS
The examiner has provided a facially reasonable basis for inferring that a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to pursue the
advantages of Tsutsui's quantum dots in the devices of Jacobs or of Colvin. QDVI
contends that the examiner has not provided a reason to combine the teachings of
either Jacobs and Tsutsui or Colvin and Tsutsui.29 QDVI also contends that one
cannot simply combine the inventions, that the art is too unpredictable and that the
result would be inoperative.30

25 Id.
26 Id. at 753 & 755.
27 Id. at 753: "Remarkably, the efficiency of their device is about 25 times higher
than that achieved so far with quantum-dot LEDs. Thinking ahead to the design of
device architectures, there are two noteworthy aspects here: the structure of this
quantum-dot LED is already close to that for an optimum device and the process of
fabricating a layer of quantum dots is simple."
28 Final Rej. at, e.g., 3.
29 Br. 4 & 8.
30 Br. 5, 8-10; Reply 2-7.
Appeal 2012-006239 Application 11/770,939

7
QDVI's contentions appear to be based on a misapprehension of the Tsutsui
review article. While Tsutsui reports problems with simply combining
nanocrystals with organic polymers, Tsutsui also reports that the authors of the
paper "[r]emarkably" achieved high efficiency "already close to that for an
optimum device" with a simple process for making the layer of quantum dots.31
Inasmuch as Tsutsui reports a remarkable success in including quantum dots in a
light-emitting device, QDVI's contentions that such a combination is not possible,
is unpredictable and would be inoperative are all misplaced.
To the extent that QDVI contends that Tsutsui's quantum-dot approach
cannot be directly combined with the LEDs of the other references, the argument is
misplaced because a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
Tsutsui-like structure could be used in place of the other LEDs in order to gain the
advantages that Tsutsui teaches.32 To the extent that QDVI contends that any
combination would be inoperative, the contention would require some factual basis
beyond argument alone to challenge the teachings of the references.33 Tsutsui
indicates that, properly used, quantum-dot LEDs are simple to make and are
remarkably successful.

31 Tsutsui at 753.
32 Cf. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (explaining that the
proper test is "not whether the references could be physically combined but
whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior
art as a whole").
33 Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Appeal 2012-006239 Application 11/770,939

8
HOLDING
QDVI has not shown prejudicial error in the rejection of claim 1. QDVI has
not urged the separate patentability of the other claims. Accordingly, final
rejection of claims 1-16 is—
AFFIRMED

For the appellant: JOHN P. IWANICKI, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., of Boston,
Massachusetts.

bar