Appeal No. 2006-1930
Application No. 09/976,199
Further, inasmuch as the term “desired luminance” is also broad enough to
encompass the desired illumination in response to the data defining the image to be
displayed, we note that Shen also teaches that the OLEDs are used in a display and that
some images may be displayed for a relatively long percentage of time compared to
others. See column 8, line 45 through 49. Thus, Shen teaches that the data defining the
image to be displayed creates a desired luminance and that the image data may change
over time, which we consider to mean that the data defining desired luminance of the
OLED is a function of time.
For the forgoing reasons we find ample evidence to support the examiner’s
finding that Shen teaches “having a desired luminance, as a function of time, for one or
more organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) included in said emissive display” and
“utilizing, at least in part, the estimated amount of degradation, attempting to adjust the
luminance of the OLEDs to the desired luminance” as recited in claim 1. Appellants’
arguments have not convinced us of error in the examiner’s rejection. Accordingly, we
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Shen in view of Yamazaki.
Appellants state on page 12 of the brief:
Claims 13 [sic, 3]-7, 10-11, and 13-18 either depend from and include the
limitations of claim 1, or include a substantially similar and patentably distinct
limitation as claim 1. Therefore, these claims patentably distinguish from the cited
patents on the same basis as claim 1.
We do not consider this to be a separate argument, accordingly, we group claims
3 through 7, 10, 11 and 13 through 18 with claim 1 and sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claims 3 through 7, 10, 11 and 13 through 18 for the reasons stated with respect to
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.41.37(C) (1) (vii).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007