Ki-Woog Song et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 29, 2019

14563607 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)

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. 14/563,607 12/08/2014 Ki-Woog SONG 6655-0238PUS1 1014 2292 7590 08/29/2019 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road Suite 100 East Falls Church, VA 22042-1248 EXAMINER CIESLEWICZ, ANETA B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2829 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2019 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): mailroom@bskb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KI-WOOG SONG, TAE-IL KUM, SHIN-HAN KIM, SEON- KEUN YOO, HEE-DONG CHOI, and CHI-YUL SONG1 ____________ Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 14-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., which is identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 2 Appellant claims a white organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, a plurality of stacks there between, and a charge generation layer disposed between different stacks with the charge generation layer including a single organic host having an electron transport property, an n-type dopant, and an organic p-type dopant, wherein the organic p-type dopant has particular energy level relationships relative to the single organic host, and wherein the charge generation layer has no interface separating the charge generation layer into an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer (sole independent claim 1). Appellant also claims a narrower embodiment of this device wherein the n-type and organic p-type dopants are disposed over an entire region of the single organic host (dependent claim 17). A copy of representative claims 1 and 17, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Corrected Appeal Brief (filed February 9, 2018) (“Appeal Br.”), appears below. 1. A white organic light emitting device comprising: an anode and a cathode opposite to each other; a plurality of stacks disposed between the anode and the cathode, each of the stacks including a hole transport layer, a light emitting layer and an electron transport layer; and a charge generation layer disposed between different stacks, the charge generation layer including a single organic host having an electron transport property, an n-type dopant, and a p-type dopant, wherein the p-type dopant is an organic p-type dopant and has a lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) energy level between a highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) energy level and a LUMO energy level of the single organic host, wherein the organic p-type dopant has a HOMO energy level lower than the HOMO energy level of the single organic host, and wherein the n-type and organic p-type dopants are disposed in the single organic host such that the charge generation layer has no interface Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 3 separating the charge generation layer into an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer. 17. The white organic light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the n-type and organic p-type dopants are disposed over an entire region of the single organic host. The Examiner rejects dependent claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite because “the recited claim limitation ‘wherein the organic p-type dopant comprises metal oxide’ is unclear” (Final Action 2). The Examiner explains that the Specification discloses the p-type dopants as being organic p-type dopants or metal oxides but contains no description of the organic p-type dopant as comprising a metal oxide (id. at 2-3) such that “it is not clear what kind of material falls into this material category [of the recited claim limitation] (id. at 3). Appellant points out that paragraph 66 of the Specification discloses the p-type dopant may be a metal oxide or an organic p-type dopant (Appeal Br. 7). Appellant argues that, “[i]n view of this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the organic p-type dopant could include a mixture that includes some metal oxide[, and] [t]hus, claim 11 is sufficiently definite” (id.). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for the reasons given by the Examiner (Ans. 2-3), which stand unrebutted by Appellant. See generally Reply Brief. We emphasize that Appellant provides no evidence one of ordinary skill in this art would understand paragraph 66 of the Specification Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 4 to disclose an organic p-type dopant in mixture with metal oxide or would understand the claim 11 limitation “wherein the organic p-type dopant comprises metal oxide” as defining such a mixture. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as being indefinite. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2008/0297036 A1, published Dec. 4, 2008) in view of Zeika (US 2010/0102709 A1, published Apr. 29, 2010), Tsutsui (US 7,511,421 B2, issued Mar. 31, 2009), Kwok (US 2004/0012025 A1, published Jan. 22, 2004) and Khalifa (US 2015/0171361 A1, published Jun. 18, 2015) (Final Action 3-12) and rejects remaining dependent claims 2-11 and 14-16 over these references alone or in combination with additional prior art (id. at 3-14).2 We will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections for the reasons given in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer with the following comments added for emphasis and completeness. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Noh discloses a white organic light emitting device comprising an anode, a cathode, a plurality of stacks, and a charge generation layer having a single layer structure and 2 Appellant presents arguments specifically directed to claims 1 and 17 only (Appeal Br. 7-15). Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 and 14-16 will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 1. Under these circumstances, the indefinite nature of claim 11 does not prevent an assessment of the issues raised by the rejection of parent claim 1. Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 5 including a single organic host such as MTDATA, an n-type dopant, and a p-type dopant (Final Action 4 (citing Noh ¶ 44)). The Examiner relies on Kwok and Khalifa as evidence that Noh’s single organic host of MTDATA possesses the properties of the claimed single organic host including the electron transport property recited in claim 1 (id.; see also id. at 9-10). The Examiner also finds that the single layer structure of Noh’s charge generation layer “would necessarily not include an interface separating the charge generation layer into an n-type charge generation layer and a p-type charge generation layer [as required by claim 1]” (id. at 4-5 (bolding removed)). Appellant does not dispute these findings with any reasonable and meaningful specificity (see generally Appeal Br.). In addition, the Examiner finds that Noh does not explicitly teach the p-type dopant is an organic p-type dopant as claimed but that Zeika teaches using radialene as an organic p-type dopant in combination with, for example, MTDATA in an organic light emitting device (id. at 6 (citing Zeika’s claim 1 and noting Appellant’s claim 7 recites radialene as the organic p-type dopant; see also Zeika ¶ 12)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the p-type dopant of Noh’s charge generation layer as the organic p-type dopant radialene as evidenced by Zeika (id.). Concerning the energy level relationships recited in claim 1, the Examiner determines that, “since the combined teaching of Noh and Zeika discloses the same materials for the organic host and organic p-type dopant as those disclosed in the instant application[,] the claimed relationship Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 6 between the LUMO and HOMO energy levels between the two materials would be satisfied” (id.). Appellant argues even if combined, Noh and Zeika remain silent with regard to the specifics of the organic p-type dopant together with the n-type dopant within the same single organic host, which also has the specific energy relationships of the organic p-type dopant having 1) a LUMO energy level between a HOMO energy level and a LUMO energy level of the single organic host, and 2) a HOMO energy level lower than the HOMO energy level of the single organic host, as recited in claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9-10). Appellant’s argument lacks convincing merit. The Examiner’s proposed combination of Noh and Zeika yields a charge generation layer including a single organic host, an n-type dopant, and an organic p-type dopant that is structurally and compositionally indistinguishable from the charge generation layer of claim 1. Moreover, the Appeal Brief does not even acknowledge, much less challenge, the Examiner’s above quoted determination that the organic p-type dopant and single organic host resulting from this combination would possess the claimed energy level relationships (i.e., because these materials are the same as those claimed).3 3 In the Reply Brief, Appellant belatedly argues that the claimed energy level relationships “would not have automatically ‘followed’ and would not be ‘inherent’ [in the combination of Noh and Zeika]” (Reply Br. unnumbered 7). Appellant gives no reason, and therefore does not show good cause, for belatedly presenting this new argument challenging the determination made Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 7 As previously mentioned, the Examiner finds that the single layer structure of Noh’s charge generation layer necessarily would have no interface, and Appellant does not argue otherwise. Alternatively, under the assumption that Noh’s single layer structure does not correspond to a charge generation layer having no interface as claimed, the Examiner finds that Tsutsui discloses a charge generation layer containing, for example, MTDATA and having a single layer structure with no interface (Final Action 6-7 (citing Tsutsui, e.g., Fig. 1, col. 9, ll. 17-26; see also Tsutsui col. 5, ll. 22-58)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to dispose the n-type and p-type dopants in Noh’s single organic host such that the charge generation layer has no interface in view of Tsutsui (id. at 9). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s Tsutsui finding by arguing that Figure 4 and column 9, lines 38-51, of Tsutsui disclose a charge generation layer made of two layers having an interface therebetween (Appeal Br. 10- 11). This argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the Tsutsui disclosures cited and relied upon by the Examiner. These disclosures support the finding in question as more fully explained in the Answer (Ans. 10). by the Examiner in the Final Action. Accordingly, we will not consider this new argument for purposes of the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 8 Appellant argues there is no reason, other than improper hindsight, for modifying Noh to include the various features and materials of the other references so as to result in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11-14). The Examiner convincingly explains why one with ordinary skill in this art would have combined Noh and Zeika or alternatively Noh, Zeika, and Tsutsui (Ans. 12-18). The record before us reflects that the Examiner’s proposed combination of prior art features and materials is no more than the predictable use of these prior art features and materials according to their established functions. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (when analyzing whether a claim to a combination of prior art elements is obvious, the question to ask is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions”). In rejecting claim 17 over all of the applied references including Tsutsui, the Examiner finds that Figure 1(b) of Tsutsui would have suggested disposing modified Noh’s n-type and organic p-type dopants over an entire region of the single organic host as claimed (Final Action 12). Appellant argues that Tsutsui’s Figure 1(b) is directed to a metal electrode including an organic compound doped with metals (Appeal Br. 14-15) and that “Tsutsui’s metal dopants do not teach or suggest an organic p-type dopant, let alone n-type and organic p-type dopants are disposed over an entire region of the single organic host in a charge generation layer” (id. at 15). Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 9 Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because it attacks Tsutsui individually (i.e., Tsutsui’s Figure 1(b)) rather than the combined teachings of the applied references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”). In responding to this argument, the Examiner convincingly explains that the teachings of Tsutsui as a whole in combination with the teachings of Noh and Zeika would have suggested the feature under consideration (Ans. 19). In summary, Appellant’s arguments fail to reveal error in the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 17. We sustain the § 103 rejections of claims 1-11 and 14-17. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject these claims. AFFIRMED Appeal 2018-008339 Application 14/563,607 10