Ex Parte KoyamaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 27, 201712873703 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) 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. 12/873,703 09/01/2010 Jun Koyama 12732-0683001 5818 26171 7590 03/29/2017 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (DC) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER BALAOING, ARIEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2699 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2017 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JUN KOYAMA Appeal 2016-006874 Application 12/873,7031 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. EVANS, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 7—11, 18, 19, 21, and 22, all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd., the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 16, 2015, “App. Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed June 29, 2016, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed May 13, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed June 18, 2015, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed September 1, 2010, “Spec.”) for their Appeal 2016-006874 Application 12/873,703 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a display device. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 7, 11, and 18 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 7, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 7. A display device comprising: a signal line; a power supply line; a first scan line; a first transistor, wherein a gate of the first transistor is electrically connected to the first scan line and wherein one of a source and a drain of the first transistor is electrically connected to the signal line so that a signal is supplied to the one of the source and the drain of the first transistor; a second transistor, wherein a gate of the second transistor is electrically connected to the other of the source and the drain of the first transistor and wherein one of a source and a drain of the second transistor is electrically connected to the power supply line so that a voltage is supplied to the one of the source and the drain of the second transistor; a first light-emitting element electrically connected to the other of the source and the drain of the second transistor; a second scan line; a third transistor, wherein a gate of the third transistor is electrically connected to the second scan line and wherein one of a source and a drain of the third transistor is electrically connected to the signal line so that the signal is supplied to the one of the source and the drain of the third transistor; respective details. 2 Appeal 2016-006874 Application 12/873,703 a fourth transistor, wherein a gate of the fourth transistor is electrically connected to the other of the source and the drain of the third transistor and wherein one of a source and a drain of the fourth transistor is electrically connected to the power supply line so that the voltage is supplied to the one of the source and the drain of the fourth transistor; and a second light-emitting element electrically connected to the other of the source and the drain of the fourth transistor, wherein the first light-emitting element is configured to emit a first light, wherein the second light-emitting element is configured to emit a second light, and wherein a first color of the first light is different from a second color of the second light, wherein each of the first transistor, the second transistor, the third transistor and the fourth transistor comprises an oxide semiconductor layer, the oxide semiconductor layer comprising a channel region, and wherein the oxide semiconductor layer is heated under an atmosphere comprising nitrogen at a heating temperature and cooled until a temperature drops by 100 C or more from the heating temperature without exposing to air. 3 Appeal 2016-006874 Application 12/873,703 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Kimura, et al, US 2007/0075627 A1 Apr. 5, 2007 Park, et al, US 2007/0091044 Al Apr. 26, 2007 Claims 7—11 and 18—223 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kimura and Park. Final Act. 2—9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 7—11, 18, 19, 21, and 22 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4—6. Claims 7-11 and 18,19,21, and 22: Obviousness over Kimura and Park The Examiner finds that no patentable weight is given to the method of manufacture limitations recited in independent Claims 1 and 18, i.e., wherein the oxide semiconductor layer is heated under an atmosphere comprising nitrogen at a heating temperature and cooled until a temperature drops by 100 C or more from the heating temperature without exposing to air. Final Act. 2. 3 Claim 20 is not pending in this case. See Claims Appendix, App. Br. 11; Final Act. 1. We therefore, do not reach the merits of the Examiner’s rejection. See Final Act. 8. 4 Appeal 2016-006874 Application 12/873,703 Appellant contends “[t]he structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially . . . where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.” App. Br. 4 (citing MPEP §2113 (quoting In re Gamero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979))). Appellant argues the claimed method steps result in an oxide semiconductor layer that is dehydrated or dehydrogenated. Id. at 4—5 (citing Spec., 1 83). That is water and hydrogen are prevented from entering the oxide layer. Id. at 5. Appellant further argues Kimura specifically states its “transistors can be manufactured at a room temperature.” Id. (quoting Kimura, 128). Appellant argues, in the absence of the claimed heat treatment, Kimura’s transistors would not be dehydrated or dehydrogenated. Id. The Examiner finds the claimed display device is substantially the same as that of the combination of Kimura and Park. Ans. 5. Thus, the burden shifts to Appellant to show an unobvious difference. Id. We agree that Appellant has shown the required unobvious difference. The Examiner’s synthetic display device is apparently not similar to the claimed display. Contrary to the claims, it is manufactured from transistors formed from oxide semiconductors containing water and hydrogen. Based on the record before us, the claimed transistors are formed from oxide semiconductors free of water and hydrogen, a non-obvious difference. DECISION The rejection of Claims 7—11, 18, 19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is REVERSED. 5 Appeal 2016-006874 Application 12/873,703 REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation