REMARKS
`
`The above amendments to the above-captioned application along with the following
`
`remarks are being submitted as a full and complete response to the Office Action dated
`
`November 10, 2010 (US. Patent Office Paper No. 20101102).
`
`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 paragraph [0074] of the present application as
`
`originally filed, as well as by Figures 2 and 3. 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. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Akimoto (US. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0132693) in view of Fukumoto (US. Patent
`No. 7,122,969).
`° Applicants have reviewed the above-noted rejections, and hereby
`
`respectfully traverse.
`
`A proper obviousness rejection that relies on a combination of prior art elements
`
`requires establishing that the prior art references, when combined, teach or suggest all of the
`
`claim limitations. MPEP §2143. Furthermore, “[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in
`
`judging the patentability~ of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
`
`1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
`
`That
`
`is,
`
`to render a claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, a
`
`determination must be made that the claimed invention “as a whole” would have been
`
`obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art when the invention was unknown and just before
`
`it was made. MPEP §2l42.
`
`As outlined above, claims 1-9 remain of record. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully
`
`submit that Akimoto, either alone or in combination with Fukumoto, fails to teach, suggest,
`
`or disclose each and every limitation of claims 1-9. For example, neither Akimoto nor
`
`Fukumoto teaches or suggests that “the driving- transistor operates in a saturation region of
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`the driving transistor” as required by independent claim 1. Rather, as noted by the Examiner
`
`on page 4 of the Office Action, Akimoto fails to include any teaching or suggestion of this
`
`required limitation of claim 1. Also on page 4 of the Office Action, however, the Examiner
`
`cites the driving transistor 102 described in Fukumoto as corresponding to the limitation
`
`required by claim 1 that “the driving transistor operates in a saturation region of the driving
`
`transistor.” Applicants respectfully disagree.
`
`Applicants note that the driving transistor of claim 1
`
`is specifically described as
`
`“driving the light emitting means according to the image voltage.” (Emphasis added).
`
`In
`
`contrast to claim 1, however, Fukumoto describes that “[a] video signal for light emission
`or non-emission of a pixel is input to a gate of a current controlling transistor operated
`
`in a linear region, which is connected in series with the driving transistor,
`
`through a
`
`switching transistor.”
`
`(Abstract) (emphasis added). Fukumoto further explains that “the
`
`driving transistor '102 is in ON—state all the time since the gate of the driving transistor 102
`
`is connected to the second power supply line Wi (i=1 to x). When the current controlling
`
`transistor 103 is turned ON by the video 'signal, a current is supplied to the light
`
`emitting element 104 through the first power supply line Vi (i=1 to x). The current
`
`controlling transistor 103 is operated in a linear region at this time, therefore, a current
`
`flowing in the light emitting element 104 is determined by V—I characteristics of the driving
`
`transistor 102 operated in a saturation region and the light emitting element 104. The light
`
`emitting element 104 emits light at
`
`luminance corresponding to the amount of supplied
`
`current. When the current controlling transistor 103 is turned OFF by the video signal,
`
`no current is supplied to the light emitting element 104, thus the light emitting element
`
`104 does not emit light.” (Col. 6, II. 35-52) (emphasis added).
`
`That is, Fukumoto specifically describes that the driving transistor 102 is in the ON-
`state all the time regardless of the video signal and, therefore,
`is very clearly not a driving
`
`transistor for driving a light emitting means “according to the image voltage,” as required by
`
`claim 1, regardless of whether the driving transistor 102 is operated in a saturation region.
`
`As Fukumoto clearly explains at column 6, lines 56-63, “[i]n the writing period, when
`
`the current controlling transistor 103 is turned ON, a potential of a video signal is stored
`
`in the capacitor 105, therefore, a current is supplied to the light emitting element 104
`
`continuously. Meanwhile, when the current controlling transistor 103 is turned OFF in
`
`the writing period, a potential of a video signal is stored in the capacitor 105, therefore, no
`
`current is supplied to the light emitting element 104.”
`
`(Emphasis added). That is,
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Fukumoto specifically describes that current is supplied to the light emitting element 104 by
`
`the current controlling transistor 103 according to the video signal.
`In contrast to claim 1,
`however, Fukumoto explicitly describes that “[a] video signal for light‘emission or non-
`
`emission of a pixel is input to a gate of a current controlling transistor operated in a
`
`linear region.” (Abstract) (emphasis added). A current controlling transistor that operates
`
`in a linear region, as described in Fukumoto, is clearly not a driving transistor that operates in
`
`a saturation region of the driving transistor, as required by claim 1. For this reason alone,
`
`claim 1 is patentable over the citedreferences.
`
`As another example, neither Akimoto nor Fukumoto teaches or suggests that “light
`
`emission intensity of the light emitting means while emitting light always changes within the
`
`light emission period” as required by claim 1. Rather, Fukumoto, in direct contrast to claim
`
`1, describes that “[a] fixed potential is input to a gate of the driving transistor at least while
`the light emitting element emits light, and this is referred to as a gate potential fixing method
`
`during light emission in this specification. Thus, a current flowing in a load (e.g., light
`
`emitting element) can be prevented from being varied.” (Col. 2,
`
`I]. 32-38) (emphasis
`
`added). A light emission intensity of a light emitting means that does not vary while emitting
`
`light, as described in Fukumoto, 'is clearly not a light emission intensity of a light emitting
`means while emitting light that always changes within a light emission period, as required by
`claim 1.
`_
`4
`
`On page 3 of the Office Action, the Examiner cites paragraph [0058] of Akimoto as
`
`teaching that “light emission intensity of the light emitting means while emitting light always
`changes within the light emission period” as required by claim 1. Applicants respectfully
`
`disagree.
`
`In contrast to claim 1, Akimoto specifically teaches that a drive TFT operates as a
`
`switch for display gradation, which depends on the length of the light emission period.
`
`More particularly, 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]) (emphasis added). 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 is turned OFF.”
`
`(Para. [0056]). Akimoto then further explains that when “the light-emission control switch
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`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. [0058]) (emphasis added).
`
`That is,
`
`in contrast to claim 1, Akimoto describes that a triangular wave voltage
`
`determines whether a threshold voltage Vth is regenerated at a gate of the drive TFT 4,
`
`which, in turn, determines whether a light emission period of the EL element is determined
`
`according to the video signal voltage. Akimoto does not include any mention or suggestion
`
`that “[l]ight emission intensity is controlled by use of triangular wave voltage during the light
`
`emission period,” as asserted by the Examiner on page 3 of the Office Action. Rather,
`
`Akimoto contrastingly provides 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]) (emphasis added). A
`
`light emission intensity of a light emitting element determined according to a power line that
`
`does not vary while emitting light, as described in Akimoto, is‘ clearly not a light emission
`
`intensity of a light emitting means while emitting light that always changes within a light
`
`emission period, as required by claim 1.
`
`.
`
`For at least these reasons, Applicants respectfully submit that Akimoto, either alone or
`
`in combination with Fukumoto, fails to teach, disclose, or suggest each and every limitation
`
`of claim 1 and, therefore, that claim 1 is now in condition for allowance. For at least similar
`
`reasons to those discussed above with reference to claim 1, Applicants respectfully submit
`
`that Akimoto, either alone or in combination with Fukumoto, also fails to teach, disclose, or
`
`suggest 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 now in condition for allowance.
`
`Where an independent claim is nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, then any claim
`
`depending therefrom is nonobvious.
`
`In re Fine, 5 U.P.S.Q.2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`.3-
`
`

`

`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, either alone or in combination
`
`with Fukumoto, does‘not render obvious claim 8 and claims 3-7 and 9 for at least the reasons
`
`set forth above that it does not render obvious claims 1 and 2 respectively and, therefore, that
`
`claims 3-9 are also now in condition for allowance.
`
`Therefore, Applicants respectfully 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 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
`
`contact the Applicants’ undersigned representative at the address and phone number indicated
`
`below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Nicholas B. Trenkle
`
`Registration Number 54,500
`
`
`
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`1199 North Fairfax Street
`Suite 900
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314-1437
`
`(703) 739-4900 Voice
`(703) 739-9577 Fax
`Customer No. 38327
`
`Febi'uary 9, 2011
`
`|94853211ALEXANDR1A
`
`