Ex Parte Cheng

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2014

12048631 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YI-SHENG CHENG
____________________

Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Jung1 in view of Yang2; and
claims 7-15 over those prior art references further in view of Koide.3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 Jung et al., US 2005/0161677 A1, published Jul. 28, 2005.
2 Yang, US 2005/0190312 A1, published Sept. 1, 2005.
3 Koide, US 2005/0202601 A1, published Sept. 15, 2005.
Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

2
According to the Specification, the invention relates to a flat panel
display and, more particularly, to a capacitor of a flat panel display (Spec.
1:12-13). The Specification explains that the flat panel display consists of
several pixels (Spec. 1:15). Each pixel contains a thin-film transistor (TFT)
connected to a pixel electrode, and a storage capacitor (Spec. 1:16-25).
Figure 3 illustrates the pixel of the invention:

Figure 3 is a cross-sectional view of a pixel

The pixel shown in Figure 3 includes two areas, a switch area 102
containing the TFT and a capacitor area 104 containing capacitor 117 (Spec.
9:25 to 10:4). The capacitor 117 includes a second dielectric layer 114 and a
conductive layer 112 (Spec. 10:1-4). As shown in Figure 3, the second
dielectric layer 114 and the first conductive layer 112 together form a
Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

3
stacking structure, and the lateral side of the stacking structure has a
substantially tapered shape (Spec. 10:9-12).
Appellant’s claims are directed to the storage capacitor (see, e.g.,
Claim 1), a pixel (see, e.g., Claim 7), a display panel containing the pixel of
claim 7 (see, e.g., Claim 14), and an electro-optical apparatus containing the
display panel of claim 14 (see, e.g., Claim 15).
Claim 1, which is directed to the storage capacitor, requires a stacking
structure with a lateral side of substantially taper shape:
1. A storage capacitor disposed on a substrate, and the
storage capacitor comprising:
at least one semiconductor layer [108] disposed on the
substrate [106];
at least one first dielectric layer [110] covering the
semiconductor layer and the substrate;
at least one conductive layer [112] disposed on a part of
the first dielectric layer;
at least one second dielectric layer [114] formed only on
the first conductive layer, wherein the second dielectric layer
and the first conductive layer is formed [sic, form] a stacking
structure and a lateral side of the stacking structure has a
substantially taper shaped [sic, shape];
and at least one second conductive layer electrode [132a]
disposed on a part of the second dielectric layer.
(Claims App’x at Br. A-1.)
The Examiner finds that Jung’s conductive layer 420 and dielectric
layer 511 form a stacking structure (Ans. 5; see also Jung, Fig. 18D). The
Examiner acknowledges that Jung does not explicitly disclose that the lateral
side of the stacking structure has a substantially tapered shape, but finds that
Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

4
Yang teaches such a lateral side in Figure 2H, pointing to layers 240a and
240b (Ans. 5).
Appellant’s claim requires the lateral side of the stacking structure
have a substantially tapered shape. For the stacking structure to have a
lateral side of substantially tapered shape, the lateral side of the entire stack
must taper as, for instance, shown in Appellant’s Figure 3, for the stack
composed of layers 112 and 114. Yang’s layers 240a and 240b are
separated from each other and while each has a tapered side, they do not
together form a stacking structure with a tapered side. Because neither
reference teaches the required stacking structure with a lateral side of
substantially tapered shape and the Examiner has not adequately explained
how the separately tapered lateral side of Yang’s layers 240a and 240b
suggest a stacking structure with a lateral side of substantially tapered shape,
we determine that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 as obvious over Jung in
view of Yang.
Claim 7, the only other independent claim, does not require a stacking
structure with a lateral side of substantially tapered shape. Claim 7 is
reproduced below with reference numerals added to illustrate an
embodiment of the claim 7 invention:
7. A pixel having at least one switch element area [102]
and at least one capacitor area [104] disposed on a substrate
[106], and the pixel comprising:
at least one semiconductor layer [108] formed on the
substrate [106] of the switch element area [102] and the
capacitor area [104];
Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

5
at least one first dielectric layer [110] covering the
semiconductor layer and the substrate;
at least one first conductive layer [112] formed on a part
of the first dielectric layer of the switch element area and the
capacitor area;
at least one second dielectric layer [114] formed on the
first conductive layer of the switch element area and the
capacitor area;
at least one etching-stop layer [116], a part of the
etching-stop layer formed on second dielectric layer of the
switch element area;
at least one interlayer dielectric layer [120] covering on
[sic] the substrate;
at least one source/drain [122/124], formed on a part of
the interlayer dielectric layer [120] of the switch element area
[102], and electrically connected to the semiconductor layer
[108] of the switch element area;
at least one passivation layer [126] covering the
substrate; and
at least one second conductive layer [128], disposed on a
part of the passivation layer, electrically connected to one of the
source/drain, and disposed on a part of the second dielectric
layer through at least one opening within the passivation layer
[126] and the interlayer dielectric layer [120].
(Claims App’x at Br. A-1 to A-2.)
The Examiner rejects claims 7-15 as obvious over Jung in view of
Yang and Koide. Appellant does not argue any claim apart from the others.
We select claim 7 as representative for resolving the issues on appeal.
Appellant argues that Jung “fails to disclose at least the features of ‘at
least one semiconductor layer formed on the substrate of the switch
Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

6
element area and the capacitor area’.” (Br. 6.) However, the Examiner
does not rely on Jung to teach this limitation, the Examiner relies on Koide
(Ans. 8-9). We thus cannot say that Appellant has identified a reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection based on this argument.
Appellant further contends that Jung “fails to disclose at least the
features of ‘a part of the etching-stop layer formed on second dielectric
layer’” because Jung fails to refer to the layer cited by the Examiner, i.e.,
Jung’s second film 520 of two-layer interlayer insulating film 511/520, as an
etch-stop layer (Br. 8). But the fact that Appellant uses a different name
does not distinguish the claimed layer structurally from that of Jung. See In
re Michlin, 256 F.2d 317, 320 (CCPA 1958) (“It is well settled that
patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations and
not upon statements of function.”); In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950 (CCPA
1975) (employing language not chosen by the prior art does not render
unpatentable subject matter patentable).
The words “etching-stop” reflect the function of the layer. Where
there is reason to believe that the structure of the prior art is inherently
capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the
applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the
claimed structure from the prior art structure. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Hallman, 655 F.2d 212, 215 (CCPA
1981). The second film 520 would inherently be capable of stopping the
etching of the underlying first film 511 by virtue of the fact that it covers the
first film 511. See annotated Figure 18D of Jung below:
Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

7

Figure 18D of Jung annotated with an oval and arrow to show that layer 520
overlies layer 511 in the area of the switch element

Appellant has not persuaded us that Jung “fails to disclose at least the
features of ‘a part of the etching-stop layer formed on second dielectric
layer’.”
Appellant correctly points out that the Examiner mistakenly referred
to Figure 2H of Yang in the explanation of the rejection on page 4 of the
Final Office Action (Br. 9). Particularly, Appellant points out that
passivation layer 700 is found in Figure 18D of Jung, not Figure 2H of
Yang, and there is no layer 700b (id.). The Examiner correctly cites to Jung,
Figure 18D in the Answer (Ans. 6). 700b is clearly a typographical error.
Appellant contends that “in Jung there is no additional interlayer
dielectric layer and Jung fails to disclose any opening within both of the
passivation layer and the interlayer dielectric layer.” (Br. 9.) But the
Examiner does not rely on Jung to teach the interlayer dielectric layer and
the opening, the Examiner relies on Yang (Ans. 8). Therefore, this argument
is not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner’s reason for
incorporating the two layer dielectric layer structure of Yang into the device
Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

8
of Jung, i.e., to prevent shorts within the conductive layers, is improper
because Yang does not configure those layers to prevent shorts in technical
use (Br. 12). But Yang’s layer 230a is a protection layer covering active
component 220, and dielectric layers prevent shorting by their very nature of
being dielectric. Appellant has not convinced us that the Examiner’s reason
for combining the references is improper.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant contends that “the Examiner fails to
explain, however, how Yang discloses the claimed feature that the second
conductive layer is electrically connected to either the source or drain
through the at least one opening.” (Reply Br. 5.) This is a new argument,
and thus we will not address it. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“the reply brief [is not] an opportunity to
make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal
to rebut the Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).

CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, but we do
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-15.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.

Appeal 2012-003128
Application 12/048,631

9
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc