Ex Parte Koyama

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12873703 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017)

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