REAL/E19.
`
`The above amendments to the above-captioned application along with the following
`
`remarks are being submitted as a full and complete response to the Final Office Action dated
`
`April 23, 2010 (US. Patent Office Paper No. 20100421).
`
`In view of the above amendments
`
`and 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 of the Claims
`
`As outlined above, claims 1-9 stand for consideration in this application, wherein
`
`claims 1 and 2 are being amended to improve form.
`
`All amendments to the application are fully supported therein. For ‘example,
`the
`amendments to the claims are supported by paragraphs [0087]-[0088] of the present
`
`application as originally filed, as well as by Figure 8. Applicants hereby submit that no new
`
`matter is being introduced into the application through the submission of this response.
`
`Prior Art Reiections
`
`, The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by
`
`Akimoto (US. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0132693). Applicants have reviewed the
`' above-noted rejections, and hereby respectfully traverse.
`'
`
`For anticipation to be present under 35 U.S.C. §102, “[t]he identical invention 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. ofCal., 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).
`As outlined above, claims 1-9 remain of record. Applicants respectfully submit that
`
`In particular, Applicants
`Akimoto fails to show each and every limitation of claims 1-9.
`initially refer to Figure 6A of the present application which, as described in the Background
`
`of the Invention section,
`illustrates a circuit diagram that provides the structure of a
`conventional electro-luminescence display panel.
`(Para. [0007]). The present application
`
`explains,
`
`in paragraphs [0012]-[0013] that during a first period of the writing period from
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`time t0 to time t1, “current flows into the organic EL device 202 from the power line (PWR)
`
`via the drive TFT 204 in diode connection” and “the drive TFT 204 and organic EL device
`
`202 together constitute an inverter circuit having an input which is the gate electrode of the
`
`drive TFT 204 and an output which is the point where the drive TFT 204 is connected to the
`
`organic EL device 202.” The present application further explains that “[d]uring the first
`
`period, an input middle point voltage for inverting the inverter is generated at the input/output
`
`of the inverter circuit, and the generated input middle point voltage is input to one end of the
`
`holding capacitor 206,” and “a signal voltage applied to the signal line (DAT) is input to the
`
`other end of the holding capacitor 206 via the pixel switch 207.” (Para. [0014]).
`
`The present application then explains that, during a second period of the writing
`
`period from time t1 to time t2, “with the voltage of the reset switch control line 211 dropping,
`
`to the L level, the reset switch 205 remains in the OFF state, so that the difference voltage
`
`between the above described. input middle point voltage and the signal voltage is stored in the
`holding capacitor 206.” (Para. [0015]).
`In paragraphs [0016]-[0018], the present application
`
`explains that, after the writing period at time t2, a triangle wave voltage is applied to the other
`
`end of the holding capacitor 206, and “[w]hen the triangle wave voltage is equal to the signal
`voltage written beforehand, previous input middle point voltage is reproduced in the gate
`electrode of the drive TFT 204' by the action of the holding capacitor 206. That is,
`
`depending on the relative magnitude between the triangle wave voltage and written
`
`signal voltage, ON/OFF of the inverter circuit having an output which is the middle
`
`point between the drive TFT 204 and organic EL device 202 can be controlled in terms
`
`of time.” (Emphasis added).
`
`As a result, “[w]ith the inverter circuit in theON state, obviously, the organic EL
`
`device 202 remains lit, and with the inverter circuit in the OFF state, the organic EL device
`
`202 remains not lit. Therefore,
`
`it
`
`is possible to control the lighting period of each pixel
`
`within one frame period by controlling a signal voltage with respect to a predetermined
`triangle wave voltage, and to thereby display an image on an organic EL display panel.”
`
`(Para. [0019]). [The present application then further explains tha , “in the circuit shown in
`
`FIG. 6A, the drive TFT 204 operates in the linear region (Lre) shown in FIG. 8. That is, the
`
`drive TFT 204 shown in FIG. 6A operates as an ON/OFF switch. Therefore, when the
`
`drive TFT 204 shown in FIG. 6A is in the ON state, a power supply voltage of the power
`
`line (PWR) is applied to the anode electrode of the organic EL device 202.”
`
`(Para.
`
`[0022]) (emphasis added).
`
`

`

`Because of this, such “a conventional organic EL display device has a problem that
`
`change of the voltage level of the power line (PWR) causes the current flowing through the
`
`organic EL device 202 to change, which further causes the light emission brightness of the
`
`organic EL device 202 to change.” (Para. [0029]). That is, because the drive TFT 204 of
`
`Figure 6A operates in the linear region as the switch for display gradation, which depends
`on the length of the light emission period,’ the light emission brightness of the organic EL
`
`device is caused to change when the voltage level of the power line (PWR) changes.
`
`.As with the circuit
`
`illustrated in Figure 6A, Akimoto teaches that a drive TFT
`
`operates as the switch for display gradation, which depends on the length of the light
`
`emission period.
`
`In particular, with respect to Figure 4, Akimoto merely explains that, when
`
`a pixel
`
`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 element 2 through the diode-connected driVe TFT 4 and the light-emission
`
`control switch 12.” (Para. [0055]). Akimoto then further explains that “[n]ext, if the light-
`
`emission control switch 12 is switched OFF by use of the light-emission control switch
`
`control line 13, at a point of time at which the voltage of a drain end of the drive TFT 4
`
`becomes equal to the threshold voltage Vth, the drive TFT 4 istumed OFF.” (Para. [0056]).
`
`Akimoto then further explains that when “the light-emission control switch 12 is switched
`
`ON by use of the light-emission control switch control line 13[,] 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 organic EL 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 light emission period corresponding to the
`
`video signal voltage, an observer recognizes a gray scale image.” (Para. [005 8]).
`
`Akimoto does not include any teaching or suggestion that the drive TFT 4 is driven in
`
`the saturation period. That is, as Figure 6A as described in Background of the Invention
`
`section of the present application, Akimoto simply teaches that a drive TFT operates as the
`
`switch for display gradation, which depends on the length of the light emission period.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully submit that Akimoto fails to teach or disclose the
`
`limitation required by independent claim 1
`
`that “the driving transistor operates in a
`
`saturationregion of the driving transistor.” For this reason alone, claim 1
`
`is patentable
`
`over Akimoto. Applicants further note that paragraph [0087] of the present application
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`explains that “although the organic EL device 2 is turned on during the period VI in
`
`FIG. 4, the light emission intensity thereof follows the change of the triangle wave
`
`voltage in the triangle wave line (SWP), and the brightness will not be saturated. This is
`
`because the drive TFT 4 'is driven in the saturation region QSre) shown in FIG. 8.”
`
`~ Accordingly, because Akimoto fails to teach or disclose any driving transistor that is operated
`
`in a saturation region of the driving transistor, Akimoto also 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 either of the
`
`similar limitations required by independent claim 2 that “the driving transistor operates in a
`
`saturation region of the driving transistor” and 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 now claimed and the prior art
`
`references upon which the rejections in the Final Office Action rely. These differences are
`
`more than sufficient to establish 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.
`
`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 ,
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`0)
`
`contact the Applicants‘ undersigned representative at the address and phone number indicated
`
`below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Nicholas B. Trenkle
`
`Registration Number 54,500
`
`
`
`Juan C
`Registration
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`1199 North Fairfax Street
`Suite 900
`
`Alexandria, VA‘22314-1437
`(703) 739-4900 Voice
`(703) 739-9577 Fax
`Customer No. 38327
`
`August 23, 2010
`
`178920112ALEXANDRIA
`
`. 9,. -
`34,072
`
`
`
`