Appeal No. 2006-1930
Application No. 09/976,199
1. A method for at least partially compensating luminance of an emissive,
display comprising:
having a desired luminance, as a function of time, for one or more organic
light emitting diodes (OLEDs) included in said emissive display;
estimating the amount of degradation of the OLEDs; and
utilizing, at least in part, the estimated amount of degradation, attempting
to adjust (adjusting) the luminance of the OLEDs to the desired luminance.
References
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Yamazaki 6,528,951 Mar. 04, 2003 (Jun. 12, 2001)
Shen 6,414,661 Jul. 02, 2002 (Jul. 05, 2000)
Kane 6,229,508 May 08, 2001 (Sep. 28,
1988)
Rejection at Issue
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 10, 11, and 13 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Yamazaki. The examiner’s
rejection is set forth on pages 3 through 7 of the answer. Claims 8, 9, and 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Yamazaki
and Kane. The examiner’s rejection is set forth on page 8 of the answer. Throughout the
opinion we make reference to the briefs, the answer and the Office action for the
respective details thereof.
Opinion
We have considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced by the
examiner and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner in support of the
rejections. We have likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s rationale
in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on appeal, the
examiner’s rejection and the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and for the
reasons stated infra we sustain the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3 through 11, and
13 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007