Ex Parte Fukuro et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 28, 201111533370 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/533,370 09/20/2006 Taketo FUKURO OKI 511 4304 23995 7590 09/28/2011 RABIN & Berdo, PC 1101 14TH STREET, NW SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER TAYLOR, EARL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2818 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/28/2011 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte TAKETO FUKURO and MASAO OKIHARA ____________ Appeal 2010-000288 Application 11/533,370 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-000288 Application 11/533,370 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-12. Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A semiconductor device comprising: a substrate; a first oxide film lying on the substrate; a thin semiconductor film lying on the first oxide film; [sic] transistor formed on the semiconductor film, the transistor having source, drain, and gate terminals; and a protective diode formed on the semiconductor film and electrically connected between the source and gate terminals in a forward direction. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Minami (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0269642 A1). Answer 3-10. Claims 1, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Asai (U.S. Patent Number 5,610,426). Answer 10-12. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-12 over the various 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections? Appeal 2009-000288 Application 11/533,370 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 12 Appellants contend claim 1 recites “a protective diode formed on the semiconductor film and electrically connected between the source and gate terminals in a forward direction.” Appeal Brief 5. Appellants argue the Examiner’s interpretation of Minami’s invention is incorrect because Minami discloses a protective diode connected to a gate region instead of a source region as claimed. Id. “The [e]xaminer takes the position that there is no structural difference between a “source” or “drain” region.” Answer 12. Appellants argue “an ordinary killed [sic] person would likely have concluded that switching the polarities of the potential supplied to Minami’s region [sic] 31 and 33 would undermine the operation of Minami’s protective diode 61.” Appeal Brief 6. We do not find the Appellants’ arguments persuasive because the polarities of the source and drain are one and the same. See Minami, Figure 2. The terms “source” and “drain” describe the function or manner in which the transistor regions are to be utilized, and claim 1 does not specify any potentials supplied to Minami’s regions 31 and 33. As such, the claim does not distinguish over the structure of Minami’s invention, and Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Therefore we are sustaining the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For the above reasons, we are also sustaining the rejections of dependent claims 2, 4-9, and 12, whose merits are not separately argued. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appeal 2009-000288 Application 11/533,370 4 Claims 1, 10, and 11 Appellants contend, “But although the gate electrode of Asai’s transistor 11 is connected to the drain as to simulate the operation of a diode, Asai’s transistor 11 is still a transistor.” Appeal Brief 7. Appellants conclude that since claim 1 recites a diode, Asai does not anticipate the claimed invention. Id. We do not find the Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because Appellants have not provided evidence that the claims preclude a transistor simulating the operation of a diode. Therefore we are sustaining the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For the above reasons, we are also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 10 and 11, whose merits are not separately argued. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d at 1572. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4-12 under 35 U.S.C. §102. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation