Ex Parte Aoki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 24, 2007

10049792 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 24, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIRONORI AOKI
____________

Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: October 24, 2007
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM,
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-13, and 15-18. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

I. BACKGROUND
The invention relates to an array substrate used in a liquid crystal
display device (LCD). As stated in the Specification:
A liquid crystal display device typically comprises two
insulative substrates facing each other interposing display
material such as liquid crystal therebetween, and voltages are
applied selectively to the display material. At least either of the
substrates is an array substrate on which switching elements,
such as TFTs, and pixel electrodes connected to the switching
elements are formed, and furthermore, scanning lines
(hereinafter "gate lines") and signal lines (hereinafter "data
lines") are formed in a matrix like arrangement for providing
signals to the switching elements.

(Specification 1:13-21).
Appellant’s array substrate includes scanning lines formed of a low
resistivity metal such as aluminum or its alloys, and signal lines formed of a
high melting point metal selected from the group consisting of chrome,
molybdenum, tantalum, and alloys thereof. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. An array substrate comprising:

a display area in which pixel electrodes are formed,

a scanning line formed of a low resistivity metal, said scanning
line being arranged between the pixel electrodes,

a signal line formed of a high melting point metal selected from
the group consisting of chrome, molybdenum, tantalum and alloys
thereof, said signal line crossing over the scanning line interposing an
insulting layer therebetween,

a terminal to which a scanning signal is applied, and
2
Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

an extended scanning line for connecting the scanning line with
the terminal, said extended scanning line being formed only of the
same conductive film as for said signal line.

The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, and 15-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dohjo (US 6,078,366), and rejects claim
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dohjo in view of Sakata
(JP 11-284,195).1
According to Appellant’s Brief, both grounds of rejection are to be
reviewed on appeal (Br. 3).2

II. DISCUSSION
Anticipation by Dohjo
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, and 15-18 as
anticipated by Dohjo, we first consider the arguments as they apply to claim
1.
The issue on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellant and the
Examiner is: Does Dohjo disclose an array substrate having each and every
structure recited in claim 1 either expressly or inherently such that Dohjo
anticipates the claimed array substrate under 35 U.S.C. § 102?
We answer this question in the affirmative.

1 For Sakata, we rely upon and cite to the English translation entered into the
record on November 25, 2006.
2 Reference to the Brief is to the Brief on Appeal (Revised) entered
December 1, 2005.
3
Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the following
Findings of Facts (FF):
1. As described in Dohjo:
The array substrate (100) includes 480 scanning lines
(111) made of aluminum-yttrium (Al-Y) alloy as disposed on a
glass substrate (101). . . . Here, the scanning lines (111) are
made of Al-Y alloy; these may alternatively be made of
molybdenum-tantalum (Mo-Ta) alloy, molybdenum-tungsten
(Mo-W) alloy, aluminum (Al), or its alloy.
The array substrate (100) also includes 1,920 signal lines
(110) made of Mo-W alloy, which lines extend to intersect the
scanning lines (111) at substantially right angles on the glass
substrate (101). . . . While signal lines (110) are made of Mo-
W alloy here, these may alternatively be constituted from Mo-
Ta alloy, Al or its alloy.

(Dohjo, col. 7, ll. 16-37).

2. Aluminum-yttrium (Al-Y) alloy is a low resistivity metal.
3. Mo-W and Mo-Ta alloys are high melting point metals selected from
the group consisting of chrome, molybdenum, tantalum and alloys
thereof.
4. Dohjo expressly describes a preferred embodiment in which scanning
lines are formed of a low resistivity metal (Al-Y) and signal lines are
formed of a high melting point metal selected from an alloy of
molybdenum (Mo-W).
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
4
Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

Applying the preceding legal principle to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding of anticipation.
Dohjo, as evident from the Factual Findings above, expressly teaches
each and every limitation of the claims in a preferred embodiment in which
the scanning lines are formed from Al-Y and the signal lines are formed
from Mo-W (FF 1-4). That Dohjo teaches alternatives to the preferred
embodiment does not negate the express teaching of the reference of
something having all the structure required by the claim. See In re
Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 1384-85, 213 USPQ 441, 442 (CCPA
1982) (Claim to a polycarbonate/cadmium laurate mixture anticipated by a
reference with a broad disclosure of a polycarbonate-salt mixture where the
claimed cadmium laurate salt was expressly disclosed within a list of
exemplary salts).
With regard to the last two paragraphs of Appellant’s argument (Br.
6), Appellant contends that:
Forming the extended scanning line and extending
auxiliary capacitance line only of the same conductive film as
for the signal line (Cr or Mo or Ta), a lower total resistance
along the scanning line is obtained without suffering from high
contact resistance at the terminal ends of those lines. DOHJO
uses low resistivity metal (Al) again in the terminal region (llla
of scanning pad 152 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 7), resulting in high
contact resistance.
By contrast, in accordance with the present invention, a
same conducting film for signal line (Cr or Mo or Ta) used for
the extending line and the extending auxiliary capacitance line,
having a high melting point metal, is at the same time
mechanically hard and corrosion-resistant. Mechanical
hardness and corrosion resistance of those metals help to avoid
breakage of those lines.
5
Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

This portion of Appellant’s argument does not identify any error on
the part of the Examiner, nor is it clear how this portion of the argument
relates to what is claimed. The Examiner finds that the extended scanning
line, as required by claims 1 and 3, and the extended auxiliary capacitance
line, as required by claims 2 and 3, are formed, as claimed, from the same
conductive material as the signal line (Answer 3 and 4). Appellant states
that Dohjo uses low resistivity metal (Al) in the terminal region 111a of
scanning pad 152, resulting in high contact resistance, but the claims do not
limit the material of the terminal region of a scanning pad. Appellant has
not shown the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that Dohjo teaches each
and every structure of the claimed array.
We note that Appellant makes a conclusory statement that “Claims 1-
3, 5-6, 8-12 and 15-18 recite varying combinations of structural elements,
many of which cannot reasonably be "read on" the DOHJO elements cited
[sic; in] the Action of 26 SEP. 2003.” (Br. 4). However, Appellant does not
specify what structural elements, other than those which we discussed
above, are not taught by Dohjo. Appellant’s broad-based statement does not
sufficiently identify any particular error on the part of the Examiner.
Appellant has not established that the Examiner reversibly erred in
rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, and 15-18 as anticipated by Dohjo.
Obviousness of Claim 13 over Dohjo and Sakata
Claim 13 further limits the array substrate of claim 1 to one in which
the scanning line is formed of partly or wholly nitrided aluminum or partly
or wholly nitrided aluminum alloy. The Examiner rejects claim 13 as
obvious over Dohjo in view of Sakata (Answer 6-7).
6
Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

Appellant contends that “there is nothing to suggest attempting to
combine these two disclosures.” (Br. 6-7). The Examiner contends that the
suggestion arises from the disclosure in Sakata of nitriding to obtain low
contact resistance (Answer 9).
The dispositive issue arising for the contentions of the Appellant and
Examiner is: Has Appellant overcome the rejection by showing that the
evidence fails to adequately support the Examiner’s finding of a reason to
combine the teachings of the references?
We answer this question in the negative.
A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the following
Findings of Facts (FF):
1. Dohjo is directed to forming array substrates including scanning lines
of low resistivity aluminum or aluminum alloy (Al-Y) with contacts to
pixel electrodes of indium tin oxide (ITO).
2. Sakata teaches that it is desirable to use aluminum or aluminum alloy
for gate wiring (scanning lines) and source/drain wiring (signal lines)
as it prevents signal delay. However, there is a problem of high
contact resistivity (Sakata, p. 7, first full paragraph).
3. Sakata solves the contact resisitivty problem by adding an impurity
such as nitrogen (nitriding) to an upper layer of the aluminum or
aluminum alloy (Sakata, p. 8, ll. 14-22).
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted).
7
Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of
underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the
prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the
prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called
secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383
U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the
sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the
[Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). Moreover, one
of the ways in which a claim’s subject matter can be proven obvious is by
establishing that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for
which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the claims. KSR, 127
S. Ct. at 1742. “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the
time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742.
Applying the preceding legal principles to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding of a reason to make the combination.
8
Appeal 2007-2163
Application 10/049,792

Sakata shows that it was known in the art that the problem of contact
resistivity in aluminum alloy wiring such as the scanning lines could be
solved by nitriding (FF 2-3). Dohjo describes aluminum alloy scanning
lines that would benefit from reduced contact resistivity (FF 1). Sakata,
therefore, provides a reason for combining the elements in the manner
claimed.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a
reason to combine the teachings of the references. Appellant has not
overcome the rejection.
III. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

IV. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tf/ls

WARE FRESSOLA VAN DER SLUYS & ADOLPHSON, LLP
BRADFORD GREEN, BUILDING 5
755 MAIN STREET, P O BOX 224
MONROE, CT 06468
9