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 Final Office Action dated
`
`April 28, 2010 (US. Patent Office Paper No. 20110419).
`
`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 [0085] and [0089] of the present
`
`application as originally filed. 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 a person of ordinary skill in the art when the invention was unknown and just
`
`before it was made. MPEP §2142.
`
`As outlined above, claims 1-9 remain of record. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully
`I
`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 norm.
`
`Fukumoto teaches orsuggests that “the driving transistor operates in a saturation region of'
`
`\
`
`the driving transistor to control light emission intensity of the light emitting means and a
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`length of the light emission period with the inclined wave voltage” as required by
`
`independent claim 1. Rather, as noted by the Examiner on page 11 of the Final Office
`
`Action, Akimoto fails to include any teaching or suggestion of this required limitation of
`
`claim 1. Nevertheless, on pages 2-4 of the Final Office Action, the Examiner generally
`
`asserts that states that Fukumoto teaches a driving transistor that operates in a saturation
`
`region of the driving transistor, and that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
`
`skill at the time the present was made to use this driving transistor to modify the TFT 4
`
`described in Akimoto with reference to Figure 2, which the Examiner states is used to drive a
`
`light emitting means according to an image voltage. Applicants respectfully disagree.
`
`Initially, the Examiner cites the statement in paragraph [0062] of Akimoto that “if the
`
`light-emission control switch 12 is switched OFF by use of the light—emission control switch
`
`control line 13, the drain end of the drive TFT 4 is saturated toward the voltage whose value
`
`is obtained by subtracting the threshold voltage Vth from the supply voltage prr” as
`
`teaching that
`
`the drive TFT 4, cited by the Examiner as corresponding to the driving
`
`transistor of claim 1, is saturated and, therefore, inherently implies that there is a saturation
`
`region of the drive TFT 4.
`
`In contrast to this assertion, however, the description of the drain end of the drive TFT
`
`4 in Akimoto as being “saturated” is not related to the existence of a saturation region of the
`
`drive TFT 4. Rather, this description of the drain end of the drive TFT 4 in Akimoto as being
`
`“saturated” indicates a condition in which voltage of the drain end of the drive TFT 4 stops
`
`increasing as a result of an increasing charge held in the storage capacitance 6. Such a
`
`condition is used during the design of image display devices that include a light emitting
`
`element to counteract negative effects that would otherwise occur as a result of deviations in
`
`threshold voltages of transistors. Thus, the description of the drain end of the drive TFT 4 as
`
`being “saturated” in Akimoto is not suggestive of any saturation region of the drive TFT 4.
`
`Moreover, Akimoto fails to include any mention or suggestion of the drive TFT 4
`
`being operated in any condition “to control
`
`light emission intensity of the light emitting
`
`means and a length of the light emission period with the inclined wave voltage” as required
`
`by claim 1. Rather, Akimoto contrastingly describes 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
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`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). Akimoto further describes that, during light emission, “the drive
`
`TFT 4 is turned OFF” and “[a]t this time, the video signal voltage is input into the signal
`
`line DAT.” (Para. [0056]). A drive TFT that does not operate during a light emission period,
`
`where the length of the light emission period is determined according to a video signal
`
`voltage, as described in Akimoto,
`
`is clearly not a driving transistor that controls light
`
`emission intensity of a light emitting means and a length of a light emission period, as
`
`required by claim 1.
`
`On pages 4 and 11 of the Final Office Action, 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. In particular, Applicants first note that the driving transistor of claim 1
`
`is specifically described as “a driving transistor for 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). More particularly, Fukumoto explains that “[a] current controlling
`
`transistor operated in a linear region is connected in series with a driving transistor, and a
`
`video signal for transmitting light emission or non-emission of a pixel is input to a gate of the
`
`current controlling transistor through a switching transistor.” (Col. 2, 11. 21-25). Fukumoto
`
`further explains 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.” (Col. 2, 11. 32-35) (emphasis added). A driving transistor that
`
`drives a light emitting element
`
`in accordance with a fixed potential, as described in
`
`Fukumoto, is clearly not a driving transistor that drives a light emitting means according to an
`
`image voltage, as required by claim 1.
`
`In further contrast to claim 1, Fukumoto describes, with reference to the driving
`
`transistor, that “a gate potential of a driving transistor is fixed and the driving transistor is
`
`operated in a saturation region so as to supply a current at all times.” (Col. 2, 11. 17-19)
`
`(emphasis added). Thus, Fukumoto describes a driving transistor that is a constant current
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`source and, therefore, is very clearly not a switch that would operate to change the amount of
`
`current that is supplied to a light emitting element (to thereby control light emission intensity)
`
`in accordance with an inclined wave voltage. Rather, Fukumoto explains that, because the
`
`gate potential of the driving transistor is fixed, “a current flowing in a load (e.g., light
`
`emitting element) can be prevented from being varied without
`
`increasing the
`
`capacitance of a capacitor provided between the gate and the source of the current
`
`controlling transistor or without lowering off-current of the switching transistor.” (Col.
`
`2,
`
`11. 37-41) (emphasis added). Thus,
`
`it is clear that the driving transistor described in
`
`Fukumoto supplies a fixed current at all times and, therefore, is very clearly not operated to
`
`control either of light emission intensity of a light emitting means or a length of a light
`
`emission period with a inclined wave voltage, as required by claim 1.
`
`As Fukumoto further explains, “the driving transistor 102 is in ON-state a_lth_e
`
`mpg 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
`rpgipp at this time....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, 11. 35-52) (emphasis added).
`
`That is, Fukumoto specifically describes that the driving transistor 102 is in the ON-
`
`state all the time and supplies a fixed current at all times, 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” and does not operate “to control light emission intensity of the light
`emitting means and a length of the light emission period with the inclined wave voltage” as
`
`required by claim 1, regardless of whether the driving transistor 102 is operated in a
`
`saturation region. For this reason alone, claim 1 is patentable over the cited references.
`
`Nevertheless, even were Akimoto, either alone or in combination with Fukumoto, to
`
`teach or suggest that “the driving transistor operates in a saturation region of the driving
`
`transistor to control light emission intensity of the light emitting means and a length of the
`
`light emission period with the inclined wave voltage” as required by claim 1, Applicants note
`
`that “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating
`
`that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`‘ Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Rather, a “convincing line of reasoning
`
`supporting rejection” must be presented. MPEP §2144.‘ The analysis supporting an
`
`obviousness rejection should be made explicit, and it is “important to identify a reason that
`
`would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements
`
`in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Moreover, “[a] prior
`
`art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a m, including portions that would
`
`lead away from the claimed invention.” MPEP §2141.02 (emphasis in original).
`
`In particular, a proper obviousness rejection that relies on a combination of prior art
`
`elements requires that “one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed
`
`by known methods with no change in their resgective functions.” MPEP 2143.02
`
`(emphasis added). “If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be
`
`used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.” MPEP 2143. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that there is no
`
`teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to
`
`combine the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`As noted above,
`
`the Examiner generally asserts on pages 2-4 of the Final Office
`
`Action that Fukumoto teaches a driving transistor that operates in a saturation region of the
`
`driving transistor, and that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the skill at the time
`
`the present was made to use this driving transistor to modify the TFT 4 described in Akimoto
`
`with refei'ence to Figure 2, which the Examiner states is used to drive a light emitting means
`
`according to an image voltage.
`
`In contrast to this assertion, however, Applicants note that
`
`,Akimoto describes that. writing of a pixel is dependent on “a change in gate voltage of the
`
`drive TFT 4 at the time of writing.” (Para. [0059]) (emphasis added). More particularly,
`
`Akimoto describes that “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. At this time, the video signal voltage is input into the signal line DAT, and this signal
`
`voltage is then applied to one end of the storage capacitance 6 through the pixel switch 7.
`
`Accordingly, the difference between this signal voltage and the threshold voltage Vth is input
`
`into the storage capacitance 6.” (Para. [0056]).
`
`Thus,
`it
`is clear that Akimoto specifically describes that writingofa pixel is
`dependent on a change in gate voltage of the drive TFT 4 at the time. of writing In contrast
`
`to such a drive TFT, Fukumoto, as explained above, describes that “agate potential of a
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`driving transistor is fixed and the driving transistor is operated in a saturation region so as
`
`to supply a current at all times.” (Col. 2, 11. 17-19) (emphasis added). Thus, modifying the
`
`drive TFT 4 described in Akimoto by using the driving transistor 102 that has a fixed gate
`
`potential at all times described in Fukumoto would very clearly render the drive TFT 4
`
`described in Akimoto unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of having a gate voltage that
`
`changes at the time of writing a pixel. ‘
`In this regard, Applicants note that Section 2143.01 of the MPEl’ explicitly provides
`that “[i]f proposed modification would render the prior art
`invention being modified
`
`unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make
`
`the proposed modification.”
`
`(Emphasis added). Accordingly, Applicants respectfully
`
`submit that because the combination of Akimoto with Fukumoto would change the principle
`
`of operation of the teachings of Akimoto, then, even were the prior art references to teach or
`
`suggest all of the limitations of claim 1, the teachings of the references are not sufficient to
`
`render claim 1 primafacie obvious.
`
`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. 2,11. 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.
`on pages 10-11 of the Final 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 selemd to be written, “as a result of switching ON the light-emission control switch
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`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
`
`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 contrastto 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 pages 10—11 of the Final 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 combinationwith' 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 .
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`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 to control light emission
`
`intensity of the light emitting means and a length of the light emission period with the
`
`inclined wave voltage” 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).
`
`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 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.
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Favorable reconsideration of this application as amended is respectfully solicited.
`
`Should there be any outstanding issues
`
`requiring discu‘ssion 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
`
`[Dewey/QM 5 M1 me
`#48, 5»;
`
`Juan Carlos A. Marquez
`Registration Number 34,072
`
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`1199 North Fairfax Street
`Suite 900
`
`Alexandria, VA 22314-1437
`
`(703) 739-4900 Voice
`(703) 739-9577 Fax
`Customer No. 38327
`
`July 28, 2011
`
`2l2504: | :ALEXANDRIA
`
`-13-
`
`