Ex Parte Green

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 23, 2011

10562293 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PETER W. GREEN
____________________

Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 24-28. Claims 1-23 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to fabricating a thin film transistor (TFT)
which may be used in an active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD) or
other flat panel display (Spec. 1, ll. 5-7).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 24 is exemplary:
24. A thin film transistor (TFT), comprising:

a gate disposed on a substrate, the gate having side edges
inclined towards one another to reach a tip having a radius of a
few nanometers;

a gate insulating layer disposed on the gate;

a channel region disposed on the gate insulating layer;

a source electrode overlying a first side edge of the gate,
and

a drain electrode overlying a second side edge of the
gate.

Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293

3
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamazaki US 6,501,094 Dec. 31, 2002

Claims 24, 25, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yamazaki.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Yamazaki.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that Yamazaki teaches “a gate disposed on a substrate, the gate
having side edges inclined towards one another to reach a tip having a radius
of a few nanometers” (claim 24, emphasis added). In particular, the issue
turns on whether Yamazaki’s gate comprises a tip of a few nanometers in
radius.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Yamazaki
1. Yamazaki discloses a gate electrode 100 formed on a glass
substrate 101 (col. 5, ll. 49-50), wherein the gate electrode tapers off to a top
portion (Figs. 1A-3D).
Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293

4
2. In particular, Yamazaki discloses forming the gate electrode
100, wherein the aluminum oxide film formed through anodic oxidation has
an overall grown length of 100nm (col. 6, ll. 35-37).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 24, 25, 27, and 28
As for claim 24, though Appellant admits that Yamazaki “has a flat,
plateau-like top that the Examiner calls a ‘tip’” (App. Br. 4), Appellant
contends that “the American Heritage Dictionary, for example, defines ‘tip’
as ‘the end of a pointed or projecting object’” (App. Br. 3). Accordingly,
Appellant asserts that “Yamazaki does not disclose any gate having side
edges included towards one another to reach a tip having a radius of few
nanometers” (App. Br. 4). Appellant argues that “at most, Yamazaki
suggests that the flat plateau at the top of its gate is maybe 200-300
nanometers” which according to Appellant “can hardly be categorized under
any definition as ‘a few’ nanometers” (App. Br. 5).
However, the Examiner finds that “the Appellant[] [does] not properly
or clearly define how ‘a few nanometers’ is intended to be interpreted” (Ans.
6). In particular, the Examiner finds that “[f]rom the Appellant[’s]
disclosure there is no explicit teachings of specific range of values for the
radius, which the Appellant[] regard[s] as the invention,” and thus “the
limitations have been left open to interpretation” (id.). Accordingly, the
Examiner finds that “the radius of the tip of the gate electrode [of Yamazaki]
has to be less than 50 nm” (id.), wherein “a tip with a radius of 50 to 0 nm
… can be considered ‘a few nanometers’” (Ans. 7).
Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293

5
To determine whether Yamazaki teaches “a gate disposed on a
substrate, the gate having side edges inclined towards one another to reach a
tip having a radius of a few nanometers,” as required by claim 24, we give
the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim 24 does not place any limitation on what a “tip” means, includes, or
represents. Thus, we give the term “tip” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as a top or end of an object. In fact, even Appellant contends
that “the American Heritage Dictionary, for example, defines ‘tip’ as ‘the
end of a pointed or projecting object’” (App. Br. 3, emphasis omitted).
Although we do not give any consideration to extrinsic Dictionary evidence,
which does not specify a particular version or date, we nevertheless agree
that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “tip” includes an end or top
of an object.
Claim 24 also does not place any limitation on what having a radius of
a “few” nanometers means, includes, or represents. In fact, claim 24 does
not define relative to what number is a “few” nanometers. As the Examiner
finds, “[f]rom the Appellant[’s] disclosure there is no explicit teachings of
specific range of values for the radius, which the Appellant[] regard[s] as the
invention,” and thus “the limitations have been left open to interpretation”
(Ans. 6). Thus, we give the term “few” its broadest reasonable interpretation
as a small number.
Thus, we give a “tip having a radius of a few nanometers” its broadest
reasonable interpretation as a top of a gate having a small radius, as
consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 24.
Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293

6
Yamazaki discloses a gate electrode formed on a glass substrate that
tapers off to a top portion (FF 1). We find the gate electrode which tapers
off to a top portion to comprise side edges inclined towards one another to
reach a top portion, wherein the top portion is the top or end of the
projecting gate electrode. In view of our claim interpretation above, we find
Yamazaki to disclose a gate disposed on a substrate, the gate having side
edges inclined towards one another to reach a tip.
Further, Yamazaki discloses forming the gate electrode, wherein the
aluminum oxide film formed through anodic oxidation has an overall grown
length of 100nm (FF 2). That is, the gate electrode has a length of 100nm,
or a radius of 50nm. Since the gate electrode tapers off, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that “the radius of the tip of the gate electrode [of
Yamazaki] has to be less than 50 nm” (Ans. 6). In view of our claim
interpretation above, we find Yamazaki to disclose a tip having a small
radius of a “few” nanometers and, thus, find no error in the Examiner’s
finding that “a tip with a radius of 50 to 0 nm … can be considered ‘a few
nanometers’” (Ans. 7).
As for claim 27, Appellant argues that Yamazaki does not disclose
“an insulating material disposed between the gate and the substrate” as
required, since “the gate electrode 402/404 is in direct contact with substrate
401 without anything (and specifically without insulating material 407)
being disposed therebetween” (App. Br. 6). However, the Examiner finds
that “[i]nsulating layer 408 of figure 4c is shown to be disposed between the
gate and the substrate” (Ans. 8). We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 27 does not place any limitation on what having “between”
means, includes, or represents other than an insulating material is disposed
Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293

7
between the gate and the substrate. Though Appellant argues that gate
electrode 402/404 is in direct contact with substrate 401, Appellant appears
to be arguing that Yamazaki does not disclose that the insulating material
407 is provided between each and every surface of the gate electrode and the
substrate. However, such argument is not commensurate in scope with the
language of claim 27 which merely requires that the insulating material is
disposed “between” any portion of the gate and any portion of the substrate.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Yamazaki’s Fig. 4C does disclose
that insulating layer 408 is disposed between the gate electrode and the
substrate.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 24 and 27 and claims 25 and 28, falling with claim
24, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Yamazaki.
Claim 26
As for claim 26, though Appellant argues that “[n]o amount of
experimentation with Yamazaki with its gate having a flat, plateau-like top
would ever produce a device with such a small channel region” (App. Br. 7),
the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to include a channel
region having a length of 20-40 nanometers “to determine the optimum
thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers
involved” (Ans. 5). In particular, the Examiner notes that “the specification
contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or
any unexpected results arising therefrom” (id.). We agree with the
Examiner.
Although Appellant argues that Yamazaki cannot produce such result,
Appellant does not show that such a range is critical by providing evidence
Appeal 2009-014671
Application 10/562,293

8
of unexpected results. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held
that, when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is a
claimed range, the applicant must show that the range is critical through
unexpected results. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Yamazaki.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 24, 25, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb