Universal Display Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 3, 2021

2020003508 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2021)

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. 15/401,258 01/09/2017 Michael Stuart Weaver UDC-852US-C1 9375 108576 7590 05/03/2021 Butzel Long / UDC Butzel Long 1909 K St. NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER MUSE, ISMAIL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2819 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/03/2021 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): docket@butzel.com kamlay@butzel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL STUART WEAVER and JULIA J. BROWN Appeal 2020-003508 Application 15/401,258 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Universal Display Corporation. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003508 Application 15/401,258 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to “light emitting devices and, more specifically, to fabricating OLEDs containing a stacked hybrid architecture including a phosphorescent organic emissive unit and two fluorescent organic emissive units.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A device comprising: a first electrode; a second electrode; and a hybrid emissive stack disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the stack comprising at least three emissive units and at least two charge generation layers, wherein: a first emissive unit of the at least three emissive units is disposed over the first electrode; a first charge generation layer of the at least two charge generation layers is disposed over the first emissive unit; a second emissive unit of the at least three emissive units is disposed over and in direct physical contact with the first charge generation layer; a second charge generation layer of the at least two charge generation layers is disposed over the second emissive unit; and a third emissive unit of the at least three emissive units is disposed over and in direct physical contact with the second charge generation layer, wherein the second emissive unit comprises only a phosphorescent organic emissive unit, and wherein the first emissive unit and the third emissive unit are fluorescent organic emissive units. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated June 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed January 3, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated February 12, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed April 7, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-003508 Application 15/401,258 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Reference Date Forrest et al. (“Forrest”) US 2006/0279203 A1 Dec. 14, 2006 Lee et al. (“Lee”) US 2009/0091255 A1 Apr. 9, 2009 Hatano US 2012/0273804 A1 Nov. 1, 2012 Song et al. (“Song”) US 2013/0069077 A1 Mar. 21, 2013 Weaver et al. (“Weaver”) US 2013/0320837 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains (Ans. 3) the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 1–3, 5, 11–13, 15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hatano in view of Forrest. Final Act. 3. B. Claims 7–10 and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hatano in view of Forrest and Lee. Id. at 8. C. Claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hatano in view of Forrest and Weaver. Id. at 12. D. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hatano in view of Forrest and Song. Id. at 13. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence Appeal 2020-003508 Application 15/401,258 4 presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Appellant does not, in substance, argue any claims separately. We therefore limit our discussion to claim 1. Appeal Br. 4 (arguing claims 1 and 12 as a group), 7–8 (arguing patentability of dependent claims based on them depending from independent claim 1 or 12). Consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Hatano teaches two electrodes and three emissive units as claim 1 recites. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Hatano). The Examiner finds that Hatano teaches that, for white light, the emissive units are formed of fluorescent or phosphorescent material. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds that Hatano does not specifically disclose that the second emissive unit comprises only a phosphorescent organic emissive unit while the first and third emissive units are fluorescent organic emissive units. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Forrest teaches a device using a phosphorescent organic emissive unit sandwiched between two fluorescent organic emissive units. Id. (citing Forrest). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to arrange Hatano’s emissive layers as claimed because doing so would be a simple substitution with predictable results leading to emitting desired white light temperature. Id. at 4–5. Appellant argues that a person of skill in the art would not combine Forrest and Hatano. Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that Forrest has a different arrangement than Hatano and Appellant’s claim 1. Id. at 6–7; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because the argument Appeal 2020-003508 Application 15/401,258 5 focuses on Forrest alone rather than the combined teachings of Forrest and Hatano. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on Forrest solely for teaching the arrangement of layers (i.e., teaching a phosphorescent layer sandwiched between fluorescent layers) in order to yield white. Ans. 5; see also Forrest ¶¶ 11–13 (teaching advantages of combining “phosphorescent and fluorescent technologies”). Appellant does not persuasively dispute that a person of skill in the art would have had reason to choose Forrest’s arrangement when selecting material for the emissive units of Hatano’s device. Appellant’s argument that other structural aspects of Forrest are not compatible with Hatano (Appeal Br. 5–7) does not squarely address the Examiner’s rejection because the Examiner is not bodily incorporating any embodiment of Forrest into Hatano. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .”). In the Reply Brief, Appellant also argues that Appellant’s arrangement provides a desired white point efficiency. Reply Br. 4–6. We do not, however, consider these arguments because they are untimely and Appellant does not establish good cause for the Board to consider them. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”). Moreover, even if we considered the argument, the preponderance of the evidence still supports the Examiner’s position because Appellant does not establish unexpected results as compared to the closest prior art. See, e.g., In re Baxter Travenol Appeal 2020-003508 Application 15/401,258 6 Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[W]hen unexpected results are used as evidence of nonobviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art.”) (citation omitted). Because Appellant does not establish error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 11– 13, 15, 20 103 Hatano, Forrest 1–3, 5, 11– 13, 15, 20 7–10, 16–19 103 Hatano, Forrest, Lee 7–10, 16– 19 4, 14 103 Hatano, Forrest, Weaver 4, 14 6 103 Hatano, Forrest, Song 6 Overall Outcome 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED