REMARKS
`
`The following remarks are being submitted as a full and complete response to the
`
`Office Action dated December 4, 2009 (US. Patent Office Paper No. 2009] 123).
`
`In View of
`
`the following remarks, the Examiner is respectfully requested to give due reconsideration to
`
`this application, to indicate the allowability of the claims, and to pass this case to issue.
`
`Status ofthe Claims
`
`As outlined above, claims 1-9 stand for consideration in this application. Applicants
`
`hereby submit that no new matter is being introduced into the application through the
`
`submission of this response.
`
`Prior Art Rejections
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Akimoto (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0132693). Applicants have reviewed the
`
`above-noted rejections, and hereby respectfiilly traverse.
`
`For anticipation to be present under 35 U.S.C. §102, “[t]he identical must be shown in
`
`as complete detail as is contained in the. .claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d
`
`1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989). More particularly, under 35 U.S.C. §102, “[a] claim is
`anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly
`
`or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
`Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). That is, to anticipate a claim under §102, a single
`
`source must contain all of the elements of the claim. Lewmar Marine Inc. v. Burient, Inc.,
`
`827 F.2d 744, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`I
`
`As outlined above,'claims 1-9 remain of record. Applicants respectfully submit that
`
`Akimoto fails to show each and every limitation of claims 1-9. For example, Akimoto fails
`
`to teach or disclose that “light emission intensity of the light emitting means while emitting
`
`light alv’vays changes within the light emission period” as required by independent claim 1.
`
`Rather, Akimoto merely provides “an image display device that is capable of displaying an
`
`image with high brightness and low power...by controlling, by use of a common switch
`
`control line 9, a pair'of switching means 7, 8 for alternatively selecting and inputting one of
`
`the video signal voltage from a signal line DAT and the pixel driving voltage from a signal
`
`line SWP.” (Abstract).
`
`In contrast to claim 1, Akimoto explains that at the time “the light—
`
`emission control switch 12 is'switched OFF..., the difference between this signal voltage
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`and the threshold voltage Vth is input into the storage capacitance 6.”
`
`(Para. [0056]),
`
`(emphasis added). Akimoto then explains that “when writing proceeds to a pixel in the next
`row, the pixel switch 7 is switched OFP, and the triangular wave switch 8 is switched
`
`ON. . ..At this point of time, the sweep voltage having a triangular wave form is applied to the
`triangular wave line SWP...In (addition, the light-emission control switch 12 is switched
`ON....At this time, if the triangular wave voltage of the triangular wave line SWP is
`
`equal to the signal-voltage that has been written beforehand, the threshold voltage Vth
`
`is regenerated at a gate of the drive TFT 4 through the storage capacitance 6. Therefore, a
`
`light emission period of the organicEL element 2 is determined in response to the signal
`
`voltage that has already been written. As a result, because the organic EL element 2 emits
`
`light for a l'ght emission period corresponding to the video signal voltage.”
`
`(Para.
`
`[0058]) (emphasis).
`
`In further contrast to claim 1, Akimoto also explains that “[i]n a pixel that is selected
`
`to be written, as a result of switching ON the light-emission control switch 12 and the reset
`
`switch 5, an electric current flows from the power line PWR to the organic EL elementZ
`
`through the diode-connected drive TFT 4 and the light-emission control switch 12.
`
`In this
`
`case, the gate voltage of the drive TFT 4 is reduced to the gate voltage whose value is
`
`commensurate with the electric current of the organic EL element 2 (period 11).” (Para.
`
`[0061]). Akimoto then explains that “when writing proceeds to a pixel in the next row,...the
`
`sweep voltage having a triangular wave form is applied to ' the triangular wave line
`
`SWP. . ..Here, based on the difference betweenthe voltage applied to the triangular wave line
`
`SWP and the signal voltage that has been written beforehand, the gate voltage of the drive
`
`TFT 4 shifts. However, if the triangular wave voltage of the triangular wave line SWP is
`
`equal to the signal voltage that has been written beforehand, the threshold voltage Vth
`
`is regenerated at the gate of the drive TFT 4 through the storage capacitance 6.
`
`Accordingly, the organic EL element 2 is turned ON (period VI)....By modulating the
`
`l_er_igth_ of this ILM period using the signal voltage to be written to each pixel, it is possible
`
`to display an image on the organic EL display.” (Para. [0063]) (emphaSis added).
`
`Therefore, while the Examiner states on page 3 of the Office Action that Akimoto
`
`teaches “[l]ight emission intensity is controlled by use of triangular wave voltage during the
`
`light emission period, once the signal voltage is stored in storage capacitance 6 during the
`
`writing period,” Applicants respectfully disagree.
`
`In contrast, Applicants submit that
`
`is
`
`apparent that Akimoto actually teaches that the light-emission control switch 12 is switched
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`ON once the triangular wave voltage of the triangular wave line SWP is equal to the signal
`
`voltage that has been written beforehand. As a result,
`
`the threshold voltage Vth is
`
`regenerated at a gate of the drive TFT 4 through the storage capacitance 6, and a light
`
`emission m of the organic EL element 2 is determined in response to the signal voltage
`
`that has already been written. Akimoto does not include any mention of light emission
`
`intensity changing during the light emission period. A pixelthaving a light emitting element
`
`that emits light for a light emission period of a length determined in response to an already
`
`written signal voltage, as described in Akimoto, is clearly not a pixel having a light emitting
`
`means in which the light. emission intensity of the light emitting means while emitting light
`
`always changes within a light emission period during which an inclined wave voltage
`
`changes a voltage level of the pixel according to time, as required by claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, Akimoto fails to teach or disclose that “light emission intensity of the
`
`light emitting means while emitting light always changes within the light emission period” as
`
`required by claim 1. For at least this reason, Applicants respectfully submit that claim 1
`
`is
`
`patentable over Akimoto. For at least similar reasons to those discussed above with reference
`
`to claim 1, Applicants respectfully submit that Akimoto also fails to teach or disclose the
`
`similar limitation required by independent claim 2 that “light emission intensity of the light
`
`emitting device while emitting light'always changes within the light emission period” and,
`
`therefore, that claim 2 is also patentable over Akimoto.
`
`Because claim 8 and claims 3-7 and 9 depend either directly or indirectly from claims
`
`1 and 2 respectively, Applicants respectfully submit that Akimoto does not anticipate claim 8
`
`and claims 3-7 and 9 for at least the same reasons as it does not anticipate claims 1 and 2
`
`respectively. Applicants therefore respectfully request reconsideration and withdrawal of the
`
`rejections based on Akimoto and submit
`
`that
`
`the present
`
`invention as claimed is
`
`distinguishable and thereby allowable over the prior art of record.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of all the above, Applicants respectfully submit that certain clear and distinct
`
`differences as discussed exist between the present invention as claimed and the prior art
`
`references upon which the rejections in the Office Action rely. These differences are more
`
`than sufficient that the present invention as now claimed would not have been anticipated nor
`
`rendered obvious given the prior art.
`
`Rather,
`
`the present
`
`invention as a whole is
`
`distinguishable, and thereby allowable over the prior art.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Favorable reconsideration of this application as amended is respectfully solicited.
`
`Should there be any outstanding issues
`
`requiring discussion that would further
`
`the
`
`prosecution and allowance of the above-captioned application, the Examiner is invited to
`
`contact the Applicants’ undersigned representative at the addressand phone number indicated
`
`below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Nicholas B. Trenkle
`
`Registration Number 54,500
`
`90% g
`
`fl?
`#23373
`
`Juan Carlos A. Marquez
`Registration Number 34,072
`
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`1 199 North Fairfax Street
`Suite 900
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314-1437
`
`(703) 739-4900 Voice
`(703) 739-9577 Fax
`Customer No. 38327
`
`March 4, 2010
`
`J70293:00015:164632:1 :ALEXANDRIA
`
`