Ex Parte INO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 17, 1999

07939720 (B.P.A.I. May. 17, 1999)

1 Application for patent filed September 2, 1992.
1
Paper No. 29
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte MASUMITSU INO
______________
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,7201
_______________
HEARD: MAY 3, 1999
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant has appealed to the Board from the examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 20 through 33 and
36 through 43.
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
2
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A liquid crystal display device which comprises:
a first substrate;
a plurality of display elements being arranged in a
matrix on the first substrate to define a display area of the
liquid crystal display device, each of the display elements
comprising a picture element electrode and a switching transistor
associated with the picture element electrode;
a driving circuit being formed on the first substrate
for driving the display elements of the display area;
a passivation layer substantially entirely covering the
display area and the driving circuit;
a second substrate substantially entirely opposed to the
first substrate to form a space therebetween; and
a liquid crystal layer filling the space between the
first and second substrates, both said passivation layer and said
liquid crystal layer being disposed above the driving circuit to
provide additional means for protecting the driving circuit.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Sawatsubashi et al. (Sawatsubashi) 5,148,301 Sep. 15, 1992
(filed Feb. 21, 1991)
Misawa et al. (Misawa) 5,250,931 Oct. 5, 1993
(filed May 15, 1989)
Noguchi 5,289,016 Feb. 22, 1994
(filed Apr. 24, 1991)
Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 20 through 33 and 36 through 43 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
3
examiner relies upon Misawa in view of Sawatsubashi as to claims
1, 2, 7, 11 and 20, with the addition of Noguchi as to claims 21
through 33 and 36 through 43.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
For all the reasons expressed by the examiner in the answer,
and for the additional reasons presented here, we will sustain
both prior art rejections encompassing all claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant's assessment of the prior art at the top of page
2 of the specification indicates that silicon nitride is an
insulating film that has been used as a protective layer on top
of drive circuits for prior art liquid crystal displays to
protect them from moisture and movable ions. A protective
insulating film of silicon dioxide has been used over the liquid
crystal cells per se as well. Appellant's assessment of the
prior art in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of the
specification as filed also indicates that it was known in the
art to combine drive circuits and liquid crystal cell circuits on
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
4
the same substrate or otherwise build the drive circuits in a
liquid crystal cell unit. It is further noted that the top of
page 4 of appellant's specification indicates that the prior art
considers that silicon nitride is a passivation film from which
hydrogenation is effected since silicon nitride contains a large
amount of hydrogen and serves as a favorable hydrogen source.
Pages 2 and 4 also indicate that polyamide resins have been used
as protective films including orienting films and films that have
been directly formed on silicon nitride protective films.
Thus, appellant's own assessment of the prior art indicates
that both silicon dioxide and silicon nitride layers have been
used in the prior art for both insulating and protective or
passivation purposes. This is also evident in Kirk-Othmer,
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd Edition, Vol. 20, page
644 (1982), a copy of which is provided as an attachment to this
opinion. We cite this reference merely to confirm the state of
the prior art and is in accordance with In re Boone, 439 F.2d
724, 727, 169 USPQ 231, 234 (CCPA 1971), since this encyclopedia
is considered a standard reference work.
To round out appellant's discussion with respect to their
own Figure 1 embodiment the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9,
indicates that a silicon oxide compound such as PSG in this
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
5
embodiment is used both as an insulating film, as well as a
passivation film for protective purposes. As to the second
embodiment in Figure 23, the discussion at page 16 of the
specification as filed indicates that a form of silicon oxide
called PSG and silicon nitride are both used as protective or
passivation films.
Therefore, in view of the appellant's own assessment of the
prior art as well as the teachings of Misawa and the state of the
art generally, the examiner's view is well taken as best
expressed at page 9 of the answer that in Misawa's Figure 3B the
layer 95 over the display transistors and in Figure 3A the layer
84 over the drive circuit transistors inherently function as the
claimed passivation layers with respect to at a minimum the
independent claims 1, 27 and 36 on appeal. Figure 3A relates to
the drive circuit structures of the LCD display and Figure 3B
relates to the display elements per se. The discussion as to
these figures at columns 6 and 7 indicates that silicon dioxide
and silicon nitride comprise insulating layers 78, 79, 82 and 84,
as specifically noted at column 6, lines 45 and 46. The overall
discussion in these two columns and the showings in Figures 3A
and 3B indicate that layers 78 and 79 of Figure 3A are the same
layer deposited as layer 90 in Figure 3B. Similarly, in Figure
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
6
3A insulation layer 82 is the same layer as 92 in Figure 3B.
Again, in Figure 3A the discussion indicates that insulation
layer 84 is the same layer as insulation 95 in Figure 3B.
Figure 3A and the discussion beginning at column 7, line 37
indicates that an additional separate passivation film 85,
apparently of polyamides as noted at line 46, is finally left
deposited on the driver circuits only and not on the display
elements per se in Figure 3B. (To clarify a comment at page 5 of
the brief, it is noted that the discussion at column 7, lines 46
and 47 should probably read that the insulation films 84 and 95
(rather than 85) are not dissolved in the processing of the
passivation film to be consistent with the rest of the discussion
at columns 6 and 7, as well as the showings in Figures 3A and
3B.)
In any event, the state of the art indicates that there is
no particular distinction between passivation and insulation
layers, that they are considered by name to be equivalent and
used interchangeably in the art and the same materials are used
for the same purposes. As such, there is, within the teachings
of this portion of Misawa and in accordance with the examiner's
reasoning at page 9 of the answer, a passivation layer in the
form of silicon dioxide substantially entirely covering the
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
7
display area and the driving area circuits as claimed. The
teachings of Misawa and the examiner's reasoning emphasize that
the same materials are deposited at the same time as the same
layer over the driver and display circuit per se to simplify
manufacturing processes.
The language of independent claim 1 of a “second substrate
substantially entirely opposed to the first substrate to form a
space therebetween” does not recite, as apparently asserted by
appellants in the brief and reply brief, a co-extensive size of
the first and second substrates. The quoted language merely
recites that the second substrate is substantially entirely
opposed with respect to the first substrate, meaning that the
second substrate may be smaller than the first substrate below
it. Likewise, and conversely, there is no positive statement of
this language in the claim and any other independent claim on
appeal such as claims 27 and 36, that the first substrate in turn
must be substantially entirely opposed to the second substrate.
Figures 1, 4D and 8 of Misawa clearly indicate that driving
circuits 12 and 21 in Figure 1 are formed on the same substrate
as the active matrix circuit 22 in this figure. The first
paragraph of column 4 of Misawa also implies that the top and
bottom substrates are the same size. Notwithstanding these
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
8
considerations, in view of our earlier discussion with respect to
the size relationships actually recited in the second substrate
clause of claim 1 on appeal, the embodiment shown in Figure 16A
and 16B (noted at page 2 of the reply brief) clearly fall within
this interpretation as well. The top substrate 331 in Figure 16A
is of smaller size than the lower substrate 330 in this figure.
The discussion beginning at column 15, line 8 again indicates
that the active matrix display elements and the drivers per se
are on the same substrate as is apparently shown in the two
figures. Between the two showings in this figure only the wires
338 exit the lower substrate 330 to be attached to the mounting
substrate 335. It is thus apparent that there are no external
circuits and that all circuits are contained within the window of
common aperture 340, thus indicating that the liquid crystal
material 333 would therefore fill the space and cover all of the
circuits including the driver circuits and the liquid crystal
drive circuits to the extent recited at the end of claim 1 on
appeal.
Even though Misawa may be interpreted as only suggesting but
not explicitly showing the noted features with respect to the two
portions of Figure 16, they are clearly shown in the first
embodiment, Figures 3 and 4 of Sawatsubashi, the second
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
9
embodiment in Figure 8 and the third embodiment in Figure 11.
These figures show that a liquid crystal layer completely fills
the space between the lower substrate and the upper substrate
which are substantially the same size, and that this liquid
crystal material completely covers any and all layers on the
pixel region 103 and the associated transistors 104, as well as
to cover entirely or in part the various drive circuits 112 and
113. This interpretation necessarily would require that any and
all passivation layers would also be covered by such liquid
crystal material.
Although Sawatsubashi does not specifically teach
passivation layers, they would have been necessarily inherent and
obvious to the artisan in the art even without the specific
teachings thereof in Misawa. This is buttressed by the
consideration that in Sawatsubashi's Figure 2 element 4 is an
alignment film which appears to be analogously shown as film 106
in Figures 4, and 11 of this reference. This film obviously
covers all circuit elements on the lower substrate including all
or a part of the respective driver circuits 112 and 113 and the
pixel element circuits as well. This would have clearly
suggested to the artisan that any passivation or protective or
insulating layers below these alignment films would have
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
10
obviously been to the extent of substantially entirely covering
the display area and the driving circuit area to the extent
recited in representative independent claim 1 on appeal. This
reference also clearly teaches the claimed orientation layer in
dependent claim 7 since appellant's arguments in the brief, our
understanding of the reference, as well as the arguments
presented by appellant's representative at oral hearing, indicate
that the alignment layers in Sawatsubashi are the same as the
claimed orientation layer.
Therefore, this analysis directly addresses appellant's
arguments with respect to the combination of teachings of Misawa
and Sawatsubashi as to the initially stated rejection of the
examiner. Thus, appellant's arguments that the examiner has
exercised prohibitive hindsight are misplaced since the evidence
of the collective teachings of both references clearly indicates
that, at least to the extent recited in independent claim 1 and
dependent claim 7, the obviousness of the subject matter recited
therein was clearly demonstrated by the prior art relied upon by
the examiner. Moreover, the examiner's position that the
passivation layer of independent claim 1 may be considered to be
a silicon oxide-based material as taught in the applied prior art
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
11
is confirmed by appellant's recitation in dependent claim 21
which indicates that the passivation layer is such a material.
As to the consideration of the second rejection, including
independent claims 27 and 36, appellant's position with
respective to these is also misplaced. The analysis made with
respect to independent claim 1 and the combination of teachings
of Misawa and Sawatsubashi apply equally as well here. Our
analysis with respect to the first passivation layer has already
been made with respect to the passivation layer of independent
claim 1 and the collective teachings of Misawa and Sawatsubashi
at a minimum in addition to the teachings of Noguchi,
additionally relied upon by the examiner. The claimed second or
hydrogen-containing passivation layer of independent claims 27
and 36 is clearly met by the teachings in Noguchi.
Before discussing the features of this reference, it is
important to recognize that this second or hydrogen-containing
passivation layer is recited as being only “selectively disposed
on the first passivation layer.” This recitation is broad enough
to include the limited teaching of silicon nitride over the drive
circuits only of appellant's admitted prior art as indicated at
the top of specification page 2 with respect to the showing in
prior art Figure 21. Thus, the language of the claim may be
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
12
interpreted as to selectively dispose only the second passivation
layer on the driver circuits. On the other hand, the prior art
Figure 1 of Noguchi clearly indicates that such a material is
shown to be apparently only on the picture element circuits as
well. There is, we note, no teaching explicitly in Noguchi of
driver circuits associated with his invention, but they must be
presumed to be a necessary part of the prior art of this
reference. Figure 3 of Noguchi clearly indicates that two
passivation layers, the first of BSG and the second of silicon
nitride, are utilized over the transistor portions of the display
elements per se. It goes without saying that the art recognizes,
as well as appellant's own assessment of the prior art
recognizes, that silicon nitride is a hydrogen-containing
passivation layer.
To the extent recited in independent claims 1, 27 and
dependent claim 37, we recognize that there is no specific
teaching in any of the three references relied upon by the
examiner that the liquid crystal material itself may provide an
additional means for protecting the driving circuit. It appears
to us that this would have been self-evident to the artisan
within 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the showings and teachings in
Figure 16A, 16B in Misawa as well as the structures shown in
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
13
Sawatsubashi. This functional limitation would have been clearly
inherent in the overall construction technique best represented
by Sawatsubashi.
As a final matter, the extensive reasoning of the answer
justifies the combinability within 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the
teachings of the respective references relied upon. Additionally,
the overall structure presented in Figure 16A and 16B of Misawa
clearly is analogous in configuration to the overall structure of
Sawatsubashi because both utilize and explicitly show respective
sealing regions for containing the liquid crystal material in a
space provided by the upper and lower substrates of the
respective references.
Other than the particular claims identified in this opinion,
appellant has presented no arguments with respect to the other
dependent claims on appeal. As such, they fall with our
consideration of their respective parent claims. Therefore, the
decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 20 through
33 and 36 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
14
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 97-2422
Application 07/939,720
15
Hill, Van Santen, Steadman & Simpson
A Professional Corporation
85th Floor Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
JDT/cam