Sang-Shin Lee

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 2, 2019

13872018 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 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. 13/872,018 04/26/2013 Sang-Shin Lee 072827/411598-01497 4833 23363 7590 12/02/2019 Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP PO BOX 29001 Glendale, CA 91209-9001 EXAMINER YANG, KWANG-SU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2691 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/02/2019 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): pair_cph@firsttofile.com pto@lrrc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte SANG-SHIN LEE ________________ Appeal 2018-004596 Application 13/872,018 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1–5, 7–14, and 17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. INVENTION The invention relates to a pixel arrangement structure for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the invention and are reproduced below: 1. A pixel arrangement structure of an organic light emitting diode (OLEO) display, comprising: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 6, 15, and 16 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 12, 14. Appeal 2018-004596 Application 13/872,018 2 a plurality of individually addressable pixels for displaying images, the individually addressable pixels being minimum addressable units of the OLEO display and comprising: a first pixel having a center coinciding with a center of a virtual square; another first pixel having a center coinciding with a center of another virtual square, the virtual squares sharing a common side having endpoints at a common first vertex and a common second vertex of the virtual squares, with neighboring vertices in each of the virtual squares corresponding to pixels configured to emit different color light; a second pixel separated from the first pixels and having a center at the first vertex; an other first pixel on a line defined by the center of the virtual square and the first vertex, the first pixel, the second pixel, and the other first pixel being consecutive pixels on the line; and a third pixel separated from the first pixels and the second pixel, and having a center at the second vertex, wherein the second pixel and the third pixel have polygonal shapes, and wherein the second pixel has a larger area than that of the third pixel. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). 11. A pixel arrangement structure of an organic light emitting diode (OLEO) display, comprising: a plurality of individually addressable pixels for displaying images, the individually addressable pixels being minimum addressable units of the OLEO display and comprising: a first pixel having a center coinciding with a center of a virtual square; another first pixel having a center coinciding with a center of another virtual square, the virtual squares sharing a common side having endpoints at a common first vertex and a common second vertex of the virtual squares, with neighboring vertices in each of the virtual squares corresponding to pixels configured to Appeal 2018-004596 Application 13/872,018 3 emit different color light; a second pixel separated from the first pixels and having a center at the first vertex; and a third pixel separated from the first pixels and the second pixel, and having a center at the second vertex, the first pixel, the second pixel, and the third pixel have polygonal shapes, a shortest distance between the first pixel and the second pixel as well as a shortest distance between the first pixel and the third pixel is a same first length, and a shortest distance between the first pixels is a second length that is longer than the first length and a shortest distance between each of the second pixels and the third pixels. Id. at 13–14 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS AT ISSUE3 Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Credelle (US 2003/0128179 A1; published July 10, 2003). Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–5. Claims 1–5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Credelle and Kim (US 2004/0183764 A1; published Sept. 23, 2004). Final Act. 4–8; Ans. 6–9. Claims 7–10, 14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Credelle, Kim, and Chao (US 2008/0001525 A1; published Jan. 3, 2008). Final Act. 8–11; Ans. 9–12. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable 3 Appellant refers to claim 11 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in its heading. Appeal Br. 7. However, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), not under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, consider Appellant’s inclusion of claim 11 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as a typographical error. Appeal 2018-004596 Application 13/872,018 4 over the combination of Credelle, Kim, and Inuiya (US 6,882,364 B1; issued Apr. 19, 2005). Final Act. 12; Ans. 12–13. ANALYSIS I. Claim 11 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Examiner finds Credelle discloses the shortest distance between blue pixel 102 and green pixel 106 and the shortest distance between blue pixel 102 and red pixel 104 are the same, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “a shortest distance between the first pixel and the second pixel as well as a shortest distance between the first pixel and the third pixel is a same first length” recited in claim 11. Final Act. 4 (citing Credelle, Fig. 18A); Ans. 5 (citing Credelle, Fig. 18A). The Examiner finds Credelle discloses a shortest distance between blue pixels 102 is longer than the shortest distance between blue pixel 102 and green pixel 106 and the shortest distance between blue pixel 102 and red pixel 104, and a shortest distance between each of green pixels 106 and red pixels 105, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “a shortest distance between the first pixels is a second length that is longer than the first length and a shortest distance between each of the second pixels and the third pixels” recited in claim 11. Final Act. 4 (citing Credelle, Fig. 18A); Ans. 5, 14–15 (citing Credelle, Figs. 18A, 18B). Appellant argues it is unclear how some vague distance could be interpreted reasonably as specifically providing “a same first length,” “a second length that is longer than the first length,” and a third length corresponding to “a shortest distance between each of the second pixels and the third pixels” such that the second length is also longer than the third length. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2. We agree with Appellant. Appeal 2018-004596 Application 13/872,018 5 The cited portions of Credelle do not disclose any specific lengths. Credelle, Figs. 18A, 18B (cited at Final Act. 4; Ans. 5, 14–15). Nor does the Examiner provide sufficient explanation as to why the cited portions of Credelle inherently disclose “a shortest distance between the first pixel and the second pixel as well as a shortest distance between the first pixel and the third pixel is a same first length” and “a shortest distance between the first pixels is a second length that is longer than the first length and a shortest distance between each of the second pixels and the third pixels” recited in claim 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). II. Claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–14, and 17 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Credelle teaches that other shapes and vertical offsets are possible. Ans. 16 (citing Credelle ¶¶ 27–28). The Examiner finds Kim teaches a green sub-pixel is larger than a red sub-pixel, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “wherein the second pixel has a larger area than that of the third pixel” recited in claim 11. Final Act. 7 (citing Kim, Fig. 3); Ans. 8 (citing Kim, Fig. 3). The Examiner finds an artisan would have been motivated at the time of the invention to combine Credelle’s pixel arrangement with Kim’s different sub-pixel sizes because the different sub- pixel sizes can correct white balance and the color coordinates. Final Act. 7; Ans. 8. Appellant argues the combination of Credelle and Kim amounts to impermissible hindsight because Credelle teaches “displacements” of pixel arrangement structures and does not disclose, teach, or suggest modifying the sizes of the pixels and Kim teaches a pixel arrangement that is Appeal 2018-004596 Application 13/872,018 6 structurally different from the pixel arrangement in Credelle. Appeal Br. 7– 9; Reply Br. 3–4. We disagree with Appellant. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not combine the teachings of Credelle and Kim without using impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 3– 4. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that combining the respective teachings of the references (as proffered by the Examiner — Final Act. 7; Ans. 8) would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor has Appellant provided any objective evidence of secondary considerations, which, as our reviewing court explains, “operate[] as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Moreover, Credelle teaches that other shapes and vertical offsets are possible; other shapes at least suggest different sizes because when a skilled artisan changes a shape, the response of changing the shape may alter the area or size. Credelle ¶¶ 27–28 (cited at Ans. 16). And we agree with the Examiner’s finding that an artisan would have been motivated at the time of the invention to combine Credelle’s system with Kim’s different sub-pixel sizes because the different sub-pixel sizes can correct white balance and color coordinate. Final Act. 7; Ans. 8. Appellant does not argue claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–14, and 17 separately with particularity, but asserts the rejections of those claims should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued in independent claim 1. Appeal 2018-004596 Application 13/872,018 7 Appeal Br. 7–9; Reply Br. 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–14, and 17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017). CONCLUSION No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 11 102(b) Credelle 11 1–5, 12 103 Credelle, Kim 1–5, 12 7–10, 14, 17 103 Credelle, Kim, Chao 7–10, 14, 17 13 103 Credelle, Kim, Inuiya 13 Overall Outcome 1–5, 7–10, 12–14, 17 11