Ex Parte Hoffman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

11778192 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RANDY HOFFMAN and PETER MARDILOVICH
___________

Appeal 2011-003270
Application 11/778,192
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-003270
Application 11/778,192

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 34-47. Appeal Brief 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.

Introduction
The invention is directed to forming transistors having a dual layer
dielectric. Abstract.

Illustrative Claim
34. An apparatus, comprising: at least: one thin film
transistor (TFT) having:
a substrate;
a channel layer disposed over at least a portion of the
substrate, wherein said channel layer comprises zinc indium
oxide, and wherein said channel layer comprises at least a first
surface and a substantially opposing second surface disposed on
at least a portion of the substrate;
a first portion of a dielectric layer disposed adjacent to
said first surface of said channel layer, wherein said first
portion of a dielectric layer comprises aluminum oxide, and
wherein said first portion of a dielectric layer comprises at least
a first surface, disposed adjacent to said first surface of said
channel layer, and a substantially opposing second surface,
wherein said channel layer is disposed between said substrate
and said first portion of a dielectric layer; and
a second portion of a dielectric layer disposed adjacent to
said second surface of said first portion of a dielectric layer,
wherein said second portion of a dielectric layer comprises a
UV curable monomer, and wherein said second potion of a
dielectric layer comprises at least a first surface, disposed
adjacent to said second surface of said first portion of a
dielectric layer, and a substantially opposing second surface.
Appeal 2011-003270
Application 11/778,192

3

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 34-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chiang (U.S. Patent Number 7,145,174 B2; issued
December 5, 2006) and Leeming (International Publication Number WO
03/052841 A1; published June 26, 2003). Answer 3-7.

Issue
Do Chiang and Leeming, either alone or in combination, teach or
suggest a thin film transistor having a channel layer disposed on at least a
portion of the substrate?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claim 34 recites a channel layer having a
substantially opposing second surface disposed on at least a portion of the
substrate. Appeal Brief 6.
The Examiner reasons that:
[A] well known definition of “on” is “Used to indicate
position above and supported by”. The Examiner argues
that the channel layer 108 of [Chiang] (see Fig. 1F) is
clearly positioned above and supported by the substrate
102. Thus, the Examiner argues that the rejection is
proper and should be maintained.
Answer 7.
Appellants contend:
The Examiner’s Answer states that one definition of
“on” is “used to indicate position above and supported by”
and that the channel layer 108 in Chiang is “above and
supported by” the substrate 102, therefore [,] it must be
Appeal 2011-003270
Application 11/778,192

4
“on the substrate.” While this is a definition of the term
“on,” it is not consistent with “on” as used in the
Appellant[s’] claims and specification. The correct
definition is “attached to or unified with” such as “paste
the label on the package.” See, e.g. the definition of “on”
at Dictionary.com. Appellant[s’] more specific claim
recitation supports use of the definition “disposed on.”
See, e.g., as clearly shown in Figure 1 . . . and described
on page 9 at lines 12-15 (reproduced below and
distinguishing between the layers simply being over one
another as opposed to on one another):

component layers being formed on one another.
For example, other layers may be included, such as
between various layers, so that layers, such as
intervening layers, may be formed above or over
one another rather than on one another, depending,
for example, on the particular embodiment.
Reply Brief 4.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Appellants
distinguish between the terms “on” and “above” within their Specification.
Therefore, we do not find the Examiner’s interpretation to be reasonable.
See Specification 9. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 34-47 for the reason stated above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 34-47 is reversed.
REVERSED
llw