Young-Dock Cho et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

13937931 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 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.
13/937,931 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