Ma, Ruiqing et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2019

15173109 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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.
15/173,109 06/03/2016 Ruiqing Ma UDC-1086US 2446
108576 7590 12/23/2019
Morris & Kamlay LLP / UDC
Morris & Kamlay LLP
1911 N. Fort Myer Drive
Suite 1050
Arlington, VA 22209
EXAMINER
ZHU, SHENG-BAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2019 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):
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 RUIQING MA, JULIA J. BROWN, CHAOYU XIANG,
MICHAEL HACK, and JASON PAYNTER
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

2
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 6–13, 17–19, 21, and 23–26.
Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states the invention relates to arrangements and techniques
for improving the efficiency of organic light emitting device (OLED) based
displays using outcoupling components disposed close to the OLEDs. Spec.
¶¶ 3, 4. The Specification defines “outcoupling component” as “a
component that outcouples light from an OLED,” and lists microlens arrays
as an example of an outcoupling component. Id. at ¶ 102. Claims 1 and 26,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter (Appeal Br.
10, 13, Claims Appendix):
1. An organic light emitting display comprising:
a first emissive region having a width across a substrate
of 2r; and
an outcoupling component disposed over the emissive
region and having a horizontal base surface, the base surface

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed June 3, 2016 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed July
26, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed September 26, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed December 10, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply
Brief filed February 5, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Universal Display
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

3
disposed a vertical distance t from the first emissive region and
optically coupled to the first emissive region, the outcoupling
component having an index of refraction nlens and a width
across the base surface of 2R;
wherein [0≤ t < √n2lens – 1 * (r + R)].
26. An organic light emitting display comprising:
a first emissive region having a width across a substrate
of 2r; and
a scattering layer disposed over the emissive region and
having a width of 2R; and
a spacing layer with a thickness oft and an average
refractive index of nsp, the spacing layer being disposed
between and optically coupled to the first emissive region and
the scattering layer;
wherein [0≤ t < √n2sp – 1 * (r + R)].

Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nakajima US 2006/0214093 A1 September 28, 2006
Segawa et al.
hereinafter
“Segawa”
US 2006/0139758 A1 June 29, 2006
Xue et al.
hereinafter “Xue”
US 2010/0201256 A1 August 12, 2010
Ichinose et al.
hereinafter
“Ichinose”
US 2013/0002690 A1 January 3, 2013
Seki et al.
hereinafter “Seki”
US 2004/0021762 A1 February 5, 2004
Cok US 2007/0069635 A1 March 29, 2007
Park et al.
hereinafter “Park”
US 2010/0045576 A1 February 25, 2010
Chu et al.
hereinafter “Chu”
US 2008/0142814 A1 June 19, 2008

REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or
35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 3.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 7, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Nakajima and Segawa. Final Act. 4–6.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Nakajima, Segawa, and Xue. Final Act. 6–7.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Nakajima, Segawa, and Ichinose. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

5
5. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Nakajima, Segawa, and Seki. Final Act. 7–10.
6. The Examiner rejected claims 11–13, 17–19, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Nakajima, Segawa, and Cok.
Final Act. 10–13.
7. The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Nakajima, Segawa, and Park. Final Act. 13.
8. The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Chu and Segawa. Final Act. 13–15.

OPINION
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejected claim 3 as failing to comply with the
enablement requirement because, according to the Examiner, one of ordinary
skill in the art would not know how to make a spacing layer according to the
recitation of “the spacing layer comprises a material having an index of
refraction within 0.02 of nlens.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner stated:
Para. 62 of the instant application recites n1ens = 1.52.
Therefore, Claim 3 requires the spacing layer comprises a
material having an index of refraction within 0.02 x 1.52 =
0.03, which is much less 1, the index of refraction of vacuum.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to
make a spacing layer having an index of refraction within 0.03.
Id.
Appellant argues that the Examiner does not provide sufficient
support for this position, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand “within 0.02” to be an index of refraction that is greater than or
less than nlens by no more than 0.02. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

6
We agree with Appellant and reverse the Examiner’s rejection for the
reasons expressed by Appellant. The Examiner has not provided sufficient
support for the position that “within 0.02 of nlens” as recited in claim 3 means
to multiply the index of refraction of the lens by 0.02.

Rejection 2
We limit our discussion to independent claim 1, which is sufficient for
disposition of this rejection.

The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner found Nakajima discloses an organic light emitting
display including an emissive region and outcoupling component as recited
in claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner found Nakajima fails to disclose 0≤
t < √n2lens – 1 * (r + R) (“the outcoupling component arrangement”) recited in
claim 1. Id. The Examiner found that it is well known in the art that internal
reflection occurs when a propagated wave strikes a medium boundary at an
angle larger than a particular critical angle with respect to the normal
surface. Id. The Examiner then determined, using Snell’s Law and Figure 4
of Nakajima, that for optimizing light extraction, it would have been obvious
to modify the device of Nakajima to satisfy the outcoupling component
arrangement of claim 1, because the mathematical manipulation required
involves only routine skill in the art. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner found
Segawa discloses a requirement for a microlens array sheet of
Sr ≥ 2t *tan(θ) + R, where Sr is the size of the microlens, t is the thickness of
the substrate, and R is the diameter of the light emitting region, which
according to the Examiner, can be rewritten as t≤√(n2-1) * (Sr – R)/2.
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

7
Id. at 5. The Examiner found the ordinary artisan would have been
motivated to modify Nakajima in the above manner for the purpose of
obtaining a required quantity of light. Id.

Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues Nakajima merely discloses an arrangement such that
the quantity of light can be uniform and does not disclose the outcoupling
component arrangement recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellant
argues Segawa discloses microlenses formed on a first surface of a lens
substrate along with a light-shielding layer having a circular or square light-
emitting section formed on a second surface of the substrate. Id. at 6. Thus,
Appellant argues Segawa fails to make up for the deficiencies in Nakajima
of not disclosing the outcoupling component arrangement recited in claim 1.
Id.

Issue
The dispositive issue is:
Has Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the outcoupling component arrangement in claim 1 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art?

Discussion
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the prior art does not
disclose or suggest the outcoupling component arrangement recited in claim
1. In particular, as Appellant argues, there is insufficient support for the
Examiner’s position that Figure 4 of Nakajima discloses the cotangent of the
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

8
maximal angle between the light striking the lens and the line normal to the
emission surface equals t/(r+R). Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner’s annotated
version of Nakajima’s Figure 4 is reproduced below (Final Act. 5):

Annotated Figure 4 of Nakajima reproduced above depicts an
explanatory view of correspondence of electroluminescent (EL) elements 3
to beam-condensing element groups 80a and 80b including pluralities of
microlenses 87a and 87b disposed near light-emitting surfaces 26a and 26b.
Nakajima, ¶¶ 6, 57–59. The Examiner has annotated Figure 4 with a dashed
line and label “t” corresponding to the thickness of optical unit 80, “r+R”
under the plurality of microlenses 87b and “θm” corresponding to the
maximal angle. See Final Act. 4–5.
It is unclear to us what portion of the microlens array 87b corresponds
to “r+R” and how the Examiner arrived at designating the particular portion
to be “r+R.” In the Final Action, the Examiner merely states the “cotangent
of the maximal angle θm between the light striking the lens and the line
normal to the emission surface equals t/(r+R).” Final Act. 4. Yet, the
Examiner does not explain what distance is equated to “R” and how the
annotation under microlens array 87b “r+R” flows from the disclosure in
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

9
Nakajima and Snell’s Law. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s position regarding Nakajima is not sufficiently supported.
The Examiner’s findings with respect to Segawa do not make up for
this deficiency, because the rewritten equation of t≤√(n2-1) * (Sr – R)/2 and
in particular the “(Sr – R)/2” does not correspond to the “(r+R)” outcoupling
component arrangement recited in claim 1. The Examiner does not provide
sufficient explanation as to why these two expressions might be equivalent.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 7, 24, and 25, dependent therefrom.

Rejections 3–7
The claims subject to Rejections 3–7 all depend from claim 1, and the
rejections rely on the same reasoning with respect to Nakajima and Segawa.
Final Act. 6–13. The Examiner’s citations to Xue, Ichinose, Seki, Cok, and
Park fail to remedy the deficiencies identified above with respect to the
combination of Nakajima and Segawa. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s decision to reject the claims subject to Rejections 3–7 for similar
reasons discussed above with respect to Rejection 1.

Rejection 8
Regarding claim 26, the Examiner found Chu discloses an organic
light emitting display including an emissive region, a scattering layer, and a
spacing layer being disposed between and optically coupled to the first
emissive region and the scattering layer. Final Act. 14. The Examiner
found Chu fails to disclose 0≤ t < √n2sp – 1 * (r + R) (“the spacing layer
arrangement”) recited in claim 26. Id. Similar to Rejection 1, the Examiner
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

10
found that Chu discloses the cotangent of the maximal angle θm between the
light striking surface of the lens and the line normal to the emission surface
equals t/(r+R). Id. The Examiner made similar determinations with respect
to Snell’s Law and Segawa as discussed above for claim 1 in order to
determine that the spacing layer arrangement in claim 26 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 14–15.
Appellant argues Chu merely discloses a surface area of an n-doped
layer that is roughened or textured to increase the surface area and increase
light extraction, and similar to Rejection 1, that Segawa fails to make up for
the deficiencies in Chu. Appeal Br. 7.
The Examiner’s annotated version of Chu’s Figure 10 is reproduced
below (Ans. 9):

Annotated Figure 10 of Chu reproduced above depicts an LED wafer
assembly including the surface area of an n-doped layer 704 after
roughening an etched surface 720, an active layer 706 disposed above a p-
doped layer 708. Chu ¶¶ 40, 66, 68. The Examiner has annotated Figure 10
with a dashed line, label “t”, “r+R” over surface 720, and “θm”
corresponding to the maximal angle. See Final Act. 14–15.
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

11
Similar to Rejection 1 above, it is unclear to us what portion of the
etched surface 720 corresponds to “r+R” and how the Examiner arrived at
designating the particular portion to be “r+R.” Regarding Segawa, as
explained above with respect to Rejection 1, the Examiner does not provide
sufficient explanation as to how the rewritten expression satisfies the “r+R”
expression recited in claim 26. Accordingly, there is insufficient support for
the Examiner’s position that the spacing layer arrangement in claim 26
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the
relied-upon disclosures in the applied prior art references.
As a result, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 6–13, 17–19, 21, and 23–26
are reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
3 112 Enablement 3
1, 7, 24, 25 103 Nakajima, Segawa 1, 7, 24, 25
6 103 Nakajima, Segawa,
Xue
6
8 103 Nakajima, Segawa,
Ichinose
8
9, 10, 23 103 Nakajima, Segawa,
Seki
9, 10, 23
Appeal 2019-002562
Application 15/173,109

12
11–13, 17–
19, 21
103 Nakajima, Segawa,
Cok
11–13, 17–
19, 21
13 103 Nakajima, Segawa,
Park
13
26 103 Chu, Segawa 26
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–13,
17–19, 21,
23–26

REVERSED