Ex Parte Ozawa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2013

10367849 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte TOKUROH OZAWA
_____________

Appeal 2011-009782
Application 10/367,849
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOHN A. JEFFERY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009782
Application 10/367,849

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 through 24, 31 through 42, and 48 through 52.
Claims 1 through 13 and 25 through 30 have been canceled and claims 16,
17, 19, 21, and 43 through 47 have been indicated as containing allowable
subject matter.1
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed an active matrix display. Specifically, the
invention relates to a layout that optimizes the display. See Specification 1.
Claim 14 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
14. A display apparatus comprising:
a substrate;
a plurality of scanning lines;
a plurality of data lines;
a plurality of power-feed lines;
a plurality of pixels formed in a display section, the plurality of pixels
corresponding to intersections of the plurality of scanning lines and the
plurality of data lines, one of the pixels of the plurality of pixels comprising
a first transistor, a second transistor and a light-emission element having a
pixel electrode, the second transistor controlling electrical connection
between the pixel electrode and one power-feed line of the plurality of
power-feed lines;
a counter electrode that opposes the pixel electrode of the one of the
pixels;
a gate electrode of the second transistor being set in accordance with
an image signal supplied through a corresponding one of the plurality of data
lines and the first transistor;
a continuous silicon film of the second transistor formed above and
independent of the substrate, the continuous silicon film being at least one of
a source region and a drain region of the second transistor;

1 See Answer 2; Final Rejection 18 (May 20, 2010); Brief 3.
Appeal 2011-009782
Application 10/367,849

3

a gate electrode of the first transistor being supplied with a scanning
signal through a corresponding one of the plurality of scanning lines;
the light-emission element emitting light when a current flows
through the counter electrode, the pixel electrode, the second transistor and
one power-feed line of the plurality of power-feed lines,
a line width of a portion of the one power-feed line being set to be
wider than that of a portion of the one data line, and
the portion of the one power-feed line and the portion of the one data
line being in the display section; and
the second transistor and a second transistor of another pixel being
disposed on opposite sides of the one power-feed line and sharing the
continuous silicon film, which is at least one of a source region and a drain
region for the second transistor of the another pixel, the one power-feed line
being electrically connected to the continuous silicon film.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 through 24, 31
through 42, and 48 through 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ota (US 5,854,616; Dec. 29, 1998), Takemura (US 5,828,429; Oct. 27,
1998), and Bryant (US 6,188,112 B1; Feb. 13, 2001). Answer 4-20.

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 11 through 12 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 through 24, and 31 through
42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error.2 These arguments present us with
the issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Ota,
Takemura, and Bryant teach a continuous silicon film being formed above
and independent to the substrate and as recited in representative claim 14?

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed
December 3, 2010.
Appeal 2011-009782
Application 10/367,849

4

Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 48 through 52 on pages 13
and 14 of the Appeal Brief present us with the additional issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of Ota, Takemura, and
Bryant teach the silicon film being directed to the power line feed line as
recited?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We
disagree with Appellant’s conclusions with respect to each of the issues
raised.

Claims 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 through 24, and 31 through 42
With respect to the first issue, Appellant argues that Bryant’s region
20 is not independent from the substrate because it is formed as part of the
substrate. Brief 12. In response, the Examiner states that Bryant teaches
that region 20 is above and independent from region 10 as it performs a
different function from region 10. Answer 20. As such, the Examiner finds
that Bryant’s region 20 meets the claimed continuous silicon film which is
independent of the substrate. We concur with the Examiner; Appellant has
not identified, nor do we find, that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim
term “independent” is inconsistent with Appellant’s Specification. As such,
we consider the Examiner’s claim interpretation to be reasonable and concur
with the finding that Bryant teaches the claim limitation. Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments with respect to the first issue have not persuaded us
Appeal 2011-009782
Application 10/367,849

5

of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 through 24,
and 31 through 42.

Claims 48 through 52
With respect to the second issue, Appellant argues that Ota teaches
capacitors between the transistors and the power feed and as such it would
be impossible to modify the reference to include a power feed directly
connected to the silicon film as claimed. Brief 14. Further, Appellant
argues that Takemura teaches, in Figure 11, the gate of the second transistor
is connected to the drain of the first transistor and as such it is impossible to
modify Takemura to include a power feed directly connected to the silicon
film as claimed. Brief 11. Finally, Appellant argues that Bryant does not
teach the source drain directly connected to its power line.
In response, the Examiner states that Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive as they address the references individually. Further, the
Examiner finds that Takemura teaches one power line is being supplied
directly to the first and second transistors. Answer 5, 21. Appellant’s
argument that the gate of the second transistor is connected to the drain of
the first transistor (Brief 14) does not show error in the Examiner’s finding
that Takemura in Figure 11(c) depicts a power line connected to both
transistors. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 48
through 52.

For the aforementioned reasons Appellant’s arguments with respect to
the two issues raised in the Appeal Brief have not persuaded us of error in
Appeal 2011-009782
Application 10/367,849

6

the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 18, 20, 22 through 24, 31 through
42, and 48 through 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 14, 15, 18, 20, 22
through 24, 31 through 42, and 48 through 52 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

babc