Young-Dock Cho et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201913937931 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 13/937,931 07/09/2013 Young-Dock CHO 29273-23945 4260 138354 7590 09/03/2019 LG Display/FENWICK 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 EXAMINER SWAN, GARDNER W.S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2019 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): FWLGDisplayPatents@fenwick.com ptoc@fenwick.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YOUNG-DOCK CHO, KWANG-YEON LEE, HEUI-DONG LEE, EUN-JUNG PARK, HONG-JE YUN, and SANG-KYOUNG MOON ____________ Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,9311 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL L. SILVERMAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. YAP, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 8, and 10, which are all the claims pending in this application. (See Final Office Action (mailed August 25, 2016) (“Final Act.”) 1.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is LG Display Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, Appellants’ invention “relate[s] to an organic light emitting display panel capable of improving luminous efficacy by efficiently extracting light generated in an organic light emitting layer.” (July 9, 2013 Specification (“Spec.”) 1.) Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (with minor reformatting): 1. An organic light emitting display panel comprising: a first electrode on a substrate; an organic light emitting layer on the first electrode; a second electrode on the organic light emitting layer; at least one capping layer over the second electrode, the capping layer having an index of refraction; a front sealing layer on the capping layer and comprising a plurality of thin films, wherein the plurality of thin films of the front sealing layer comprise a resonance inducing layer on the capping layer, a first inorganic barrier layer on the resonance inducing layer, an organic barrier layer on the first inorganic barrier layer, a second inorganic barrier layer on the organic barrier layer, an adhesive film on the second inorganic barrier layer, and a barrier film on the adhesive film; and wherein the first inorganic barrier layer has a multilayer structure that is distinct from the organic barrier layer and the second inorganic barrier layer, Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 3 the multilayer structure of the first inorganic barrier layer comprising at least two selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide (SiOx), silicon oxynitride (SiON), silicon nitride (SiNx), aluminum oxide (AlxOx), and lithium fluoride (LiF), wherein an index of refraction of the resonance inducing layer is lower than both the index of refraction of the capping layer and an index of refraction of the first inorganic barrier layer, and wherein the index of refraction of the capping layer is higher than the index of refraction of the first inorganic barrier layer, wherein the resonance inducing layer has a single layer structure or a multilayer structure using at least one material selected from the group consisting of PA, Pl, triamine derivatives, arylene diamine derivatives, CBP, tris (8- hydroxyquinoline) aluminum (Alq3) complexes, and lithium fluoride (LiF), and wherein a thickness of the resonance inducing layer is in a range of 60 to 80 nm. Prior Art and Rejection on Appeal The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal: Chung et al. (“Chung”) US 2003/0071569 Al Apr. 17, 2003 Hasegawa et al. (“Hasegawa”) US 2008/0203908 Al Aug. 28, 2008 Kashiwabara US 2010/0320481 Al Dec. 23, 2010 Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 4 Claims 1, 3–5, 8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Chung and Kashiwabara. (See Final Act. 3–9.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Motivation to Modify Hasegawa’s Third Sealing Layer to a Multilayer Structure Appellants contend that “[t]he [E]xaminer has applied improper hindsight to construct the suggested combination using the claims as his guide.” (Appeal Br. 6.) With regard to claim 1, the Examiner states that Hasegawa discloses most of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the first inorganic barrier layer (31) [of Hasegawa] has a multilayer structure that is distinct from the organic barrier layer (32) and the second inorganic barrier layer, the multilayer structure of the first inorganic layer (31) comprising at least two selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide (SiOx), silicon oxynitride (SiON), silicon nitride (SiNx), aluminum oxide (AlxOs), and lithium fluoride (LiF). (Final Act. 4.) However, according to the Examiner, [i]t would have also been obvious to form the first inorganic barrier layer (31) as a multilayer, by adding a fourth sealing layer above the third sealing layer (31) of Hasegawa using an inorganic material different from that used to form the third sealing layer (31) selected from Si02, SiN, or SiON, for the purpose choosing Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 5 from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of improving the resistance of the sealing layers to oxygen or moisture (¶ [0056]). (Final Act. 4.) The Examiner explains that “Hasegawa []teaches that there may be more than three sealing layers (¶ [0058])” and that “the sealing layers may be made from materials such as SiN and SiON (¶ [0057]), both of which are well known to have a refractive index larger than Si02, and the refractive index of SiN may be larger than SiON.” (Id. at 5.) Appellants contend that “nowhere does Hasegawa disclose or suggest that the third sealing layer 31 ‘has a multilayer structure,’ as claimed.” (Appeal Br. 5–6.) We are not persuaded by Appellants contention and agree with the Examiner that paragraph 58 of Hasegawa teaches additional sealing layers: [0058] In this embodiment, description will be made by taking, as an example, a case of a three-layer configuration in which the second sealing layer 30 is formed in contact with the light extraction side of the first sealing layer 29, while the third sealing layer 31 is formed in contact with the light extraction side of the second sealing layer 30. However, it is sufficient that the organic light-emitting device according to the present invention has at least one sealing layer (first sealing layer 29) which is in contact with the transparent electrode 28 serving as the light extraction side electrode. However, when the second sealing layer 30, and further the third sealing layer 31, are formed, higher sealing performance can be obtained. Further, no upper limit is present in the number of staked sealing layers. Therefore, a multilayer configuration including more than three layers may be used. (Hasegawa ¶ 58, emphasis added; Ans. 2–3; Final Act. 4.) Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include an additional inorganic sealing layer, chosen from among the materials described in Hasegawa ¶ [0057], above the third Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 6 inorganic sealing layer to form a multilayer (the combination of the two layers) for the purpose of achieving higher sealing performance.” (Ans. 3.) In the Reply Brief, Appellants further make the following argument relating to the ordering of organic and inorganic barrier layers: Even with the disclosure of paragraph [0058] of Hasegawa that additional sealing layers can be used in general, it would still not be obvious to add another inorganic sealing layer that specifically results in the front sealing layer comprising the following ordering of thin films as recited in claim 1: an inorganic barrier layer from the first inorganic barrier layer, another inorganic barrier layer from the first inorganic barrier layer, an organic barrier layer on the other inorganic barrier layer from the first inorganic barrier layer, and a second inorganic barrier layer (e.g., inorganic-inorganic-organic- inorganic), as claimed. The examiner improperly argues that a mere generic statement that additional sealing layers can be used somehow discloses and makes obvious the specific presence and ordering of the inorganic barrier layer, another inorganic barrier layer, an organic barrier layer, and a second inorganic barrier layer (i.e., inorganic-inorganic-organic-inorganic) as recited in claim 1. (Reply Br. 3–4.) This is a new argument that is raised in reply and is deemed waived. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 7 the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”). We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art “cannot simply add a fourth sealing layer on the third sealing layer 31 of Hasegawa as asserted by the examiner, because the additional thickness of the fourth sealing layer may reduce the positive interference of light thereby reducing the luminance of the organic light emitting display panel.” (Appeal Br. 7, emphasis added.) According to Appellants, “in addition to blocking oxygen or moisture, the claimed ‘first inorganic barrier layer’ also increases the positive interference of light in the organic light emitting display panel as described at paragraphs [0049] – [0050] of the [S]pecification as filed.” (Id.) Therefore, “the function of the first inorganic barrier layer is not merely to improve the resistance of the sealing layers to oxygen or moisture as disclosed in Hasegawa, but rather to also increase the positive interference of light in the organic light emitting display panel” because “[t]he increased positive interference of light increases the luminance of the organic light emitting display panel.” (Id.) First, Appellants present only attorney arguments, unsupported by evidence. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence). While Appellants point to the Specification stating that “the claimed ‘first inorganic barrier layer’ also increases the positive interference of light in the organic light emitting display panel,” only attorney argument is offered in drawing the conclusion that “the additional thickness of the Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 8 fourth sealing layer [in Hasekawa] may reduce the positive interference of light thereby reducing the luminance of the organic light emitting display panel.” (Appeal Br. 7, emphasis added.) Moreover, notwithstanding Appellants’ attorney arguments stating otherwise (Reply Br. 6–7), we agree with the Examiner that paragraphs 49 and 50 of the Specification “merely describes the proper index of refraction for forming optical resonance between the light emitting layers and capping layer/resonance inducing layer interface” and does not “provide support for the Appellant[s’] contention that the additional thickness of a fourth sealing layer may reduce positive interference of light, nor how such a situation is dealt with when the first inorganic layer comprises a multilayer.” (Ans. 4.) Furthermore, Appellants do not explain why the claimed invention, which also includes the fourth sealing layer, would not reduce the positive interference of light due to the additional thickness of the forth sealing layer. Even assuming that not reducing positive interference is a requirement, we agree with the Examiner that “tuning film thicknesses and indices of refraction in order to optimize light emission efficiency is well known in the art” and that “Hasegawa itself in [paragraph] [0091] describes tuning the thickness of the second sealing layer so as not to cause undesired resonant effects with the third sealing layer.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner further states that “[n]ot only does Hasegawa recognize the need to adjust film thicknesses and indices of the sealing layers to obtain the desired emission characteristics, but it also provides a solution by prescribing the thickness of the second sealing layer to be within a certain range.” (Id.) Appellants, however, contend that “Hasegawa at best discloses tuning a single sealing layer to result in satisfactory emission characteristics” and not Appeal 2017-010687 Application 13/937,931 9 the “tuning of multiple sealing layers included in the staked sealing layer of Hasegawa.” (Reply Br. 6.) Appellants also contend that “paragraph [0091] of Hasegawa merely discloses different thicknesses of the second sealing layer 30 (e.g., 1,500 nm or more, preferably 2,000 nm or more) to achieve satisfactory emission characteristics.” (Id. at 5.) We agree with the Examiner’s unchallenged finding that “tuning film thicknesses and indices of refraction in order to optimize light emission efficiency is well known in the art.” (Ans. 4.) Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ narrow reading of the teachings in Hasegawa, which the Examiner uses as an example to support the general contention that “tuning film thicknesses and indices of refraction in order to optimize light emission efficiency is well known in the art.” (Id.; see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”)) For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3–5, 8, and 10, which are not argued separately, and sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 8, and 10. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–5, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation