Ex Parte Choi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 25, 2008

09843781 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WOO HYUK CHOI
____________________

Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Decided: March 25, 2008
____________________

Before: ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-9, 12, 15-19, 21-24, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant discloses repair structures and methods for liquid crystal
displays (LCDs) that can be used to repair a defect due to a short circuit
between lines of the LCD. (Spec. ¶ [0002]). The application details that the
repair pattern is selectively formed at the portion where a short circuit
Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781

between the lines occurs so that the resistance of the repair pattern need not
increase with increasing panel size. (Spec. ¶ [0072]).
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, 15-19, 21-24, and 26 are pending in the application,
where claims 2, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 25, and 27 have been cancelled and
claims 1, 3-8, 17-19, 21-24, and 26 have been allowed in the Answer. (Ans.
2). Claims 9, 12, 15, and 16 remain rejected over prior art.
Independent claim 9, which is deemed to be representative, reads as
follows:
9. A repair structure for a liquid crystal display having a
substrate, comprising:

a data line on the substrate;

a scan line crossing the data line and having first, second, and
third segments, wherein the second segment is electrically
isolated from the first and third segments by an insulating
material and is located at a portion where the scan line and the
data line overlap; and

a repair pattern electrically isolated from the second segment
and electrically connecting the first segment with the third
segment of the scan line, wherein the repair pattern bypasses to
pixel electrodes adjacent to the scan line.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Salisbury US 5,303,074 Apr. 12, 1994
Baum US 5,407,710 Apr. 18, 1995
Henley US 5,459,410 Oct. 17, 1995

2
Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781

The Examiner rejected claims 9, 12, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Salisbury and Henley. We note that claims 1,
3-8, 17-19, 21-24 and 26 were rejected in the final Office Action under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) over prior art, but those rejections were withdrawn by the
Examiner (Ans. 2) and are thus not reviewed in this decision.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Brief, the Reply Brief, and the Answer for their
respective details. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have
been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in
the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 9, 12,
15, and 16 obvious in view of Salisbury and Henley?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The application details a repair structure for a liquid crystal display
having a substrate which includes a data line on the substrate and a scan line
crossing the data line and having first, second, and third segments. The
second segment is electrically isolated from the first and third segments by
an insulating material and is located at a portion where the scan line and the
data line overlap. A repair pattern is electrically isolated from the second
segment and electrically connects the first segment with the third segment of
the scan line, where the repair pattern bypasses to pixel electrodes adjacent
3
Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781

to the scan line. (Spec. ¶¶ [0067]-[0070]; Figs. 8 and 9, elements 20, 21, 23,
51 and 51a).
2. The Specification provides that “[t]he repair pattern 25 is bypassed
toward pixel electrodes 27 and 27a adjacent to the data line 23 to overlap the
pixel electrodes 27 and 27a.” (Spec. ¶ [0036]) (Emphasis added).
3. Independent claim 1 recites, in part, that “the repair pattern
bypasses to pixel electrodes adjacent to the data line and has a portion
overlapping the pixel electrodes,” and independent claim 9 recites, in part,
that “the repair pattern bypasses to pixel electrodes adjacent to the scan
line.”
4. Salisbury discloses a thin film electronic display device with
embedded repair lines positioned to be electrically coupled to the
transmission lines. The repair lines are physically near the transmission
lines and the crossover points thereof to allow those lines to be severed
adjacent to the crossover point. Active components, such as a field effect
transistor or a photodiode, are also located proximate to the transmission
lines. (Abstract; col. 7, l. 42 – col. 8, l. 3; col. 8, l. 65 – col. 9, l. 3; Figs. 2A
and 2B, elements 102, 103, 104, 118, 122, 123, and 150).
5. Henley discloses methods for inspecting and repairing an active
matrix LCD panel. A scan line is cut at locations to sever the short circuit,
and laser passivation is used to remove portions of the scan lines to form a
conductive bridge. A gate line and a drive line are respectively coupled to
the gate and source of a thin film transistor to define a pixel region.
(Abstract; col. 11, l. 65 – col. 12, l. 6; Figs. 12c and 14, elements 13, 15, 80,
82, 84, 86, and 88).
4
Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “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 claims on appeal should not be confined to specific embodiments
described in the Specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Because claim terms are normally used
consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often
illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.” Id. at 1314
(citations omitted). During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted
as broadly as their terms reasonably allow since applicants have the power
during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art.
In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that language found in claim 9, which remains
rejected over prior art, is similar to language found in claim 1, which has
been allowed by the Examiner. While both claims recite that the “repair
5
Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781

pattern bypasses to pixel electrodes adjacent to” the transmission line, claim
1 further recites that the repair pattern “has a portion overlapping the pixel
electrodes.” (Finding of Fact 3). Through claim differentiation, it is clear
that both recitations cannot mean “overlap.” Since the recitation in claim 9
bypasses to but does not overlap a pixel electrode, that recitation cannot
require the overlap of the repair pattern and the pixel electrode. Therefore,
the nature of overlap of the repair pattern and the pixel electrode, if any, is
not a feature of independent claim 9. Thus, Appellant’s arguments raised in
the Reply Brief, that neither Salisbury nor Henley teaches or suggests a
repair structure which “overlaps or bypasses” to the pixel electrodes, are
immaterial. (Reply Br. 2-5).
The recitation in claim 9 that the “repair pattern bypasses to pixel
electrodes” needs to be interpreted in terms of how that limitation is used in
the Specification. The clearest usage is that the repair pattern is bypassed
toward pixel electrodes, (Finding of Fact 2), and we interpret that limitation
as such. Given the description of the electrodes used to control pixels in
both Salisbury and Henley, (Findings of Fact 4 and 5), the repair patterns in
both references do bypass toward the pixel electrodes. Since we find that
this is all that is required by claim 9, i.e., that the repair pattern bypasses
toward the pixel electrodes, and Appellant has not argued other elements of
claim 9, we find that the combination of Salisbury and Henley teaches or
suggests all of the elements of claim 9. Thus, we find no error in the
rejection of claim 9 by the Examiner.
6
Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781

Additionally, Appellant has raised no arguments with respect to
claims 12, 15, and 16 other than their dependence on independent claim 9.
Thus, we affirm the rejections of those claims as well.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 9, 12, 15, and 16, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

7
Appeal 2007-3814
Application 09/843,781

AFFIRMED

eld

MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
8