Ex Parte Park et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 24, 2009

10300778 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAE LIM PARK, SEONG SOO HWANG,
and SU HWAN MOON
____________

Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided1: March 24, 2009
____________

Before CHARLES F. WARREN, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 through 9. Claims 10 through 14, the

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

other claims pending in this application, stand withdrawn from consideration
by the Examiner. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a line on glass (LOG) type
liquid crystal display panel.
Further details of the appealed subject matter are recited in claim 1,
which is reproduced below:
1. A line on glass type liquid crystal display panel, comprising:
a picture display part having a plurality of liquid crystal cells, each of
which is arranged at each crossing area between gate lines and data lines;
and
line on glass type signal lines being provided at an outer area of the
picture display part and having at least first and second lines, said line on
glass type signal lines applying driving signals to driver integrated circuits
for driving the gate lines and/or the data lines and connecting the driver
integrated circuits to each other,
wherein said first and second lines of said line on glass type signal
lines are separately provided at different metal layers having an insulating
film therebetween, and a width of the first line is greater than a width of the
second line.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner relies upon the following references:
Song US 6,313,889 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Takahashi US 2003/0112382 A1 Jun. 19, 2003
Yamamoto US 6,587,161 B1 Jul. 1, 2003

Appellants appeal the following rejection of the Examiner:
2
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

Claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Song, Takahashi, and Yamamoto.
Appellants separately argue the rejection of independent claim 1. (Br.
4-6). Appellants do not advance any specific argument regarding the
rejection of the remaining claims, which ultimately depend from
independent claim 1. (Br. 4-7). Instead, Appellants refer to their arguments
made in connection with the rejection of independent claim 1. (Br. 6-7).
Accordingly, we address Appellants’ arguments regarding the
rejection with respect to claim 1 only. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
The Examiner determines that Song in combination with Takahashi
and Yamamoto would have suggested all of the claim 1 features. (Ans. 4-7).
Appellants contend that Song teaches gate lines formed inside the display
region but does not teach the feature "said first and second lines of said line
on glass type signal lines are separately provided at different metal layers
having an insulating film" recited in claim 1. (Br. 5). Appellants also
contend that
Nowhere does Yamamoto et al. disclose that the leading lines 23a and
23b are used to transfer driving signals to a driver integrated circuit as
in the LOG lines in the claimed invention. Nor does Yamamoto et al.
disclose that the width of one of the leading lines 23 and 23b is greater
than that of the other leading line.
(Br. 6) (emphasis omitted).

Thus, the issues are:
(1) Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that Song teaches or would have suggested the feature "said
3
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

first and second lines of said line on glass type signal lines are separately
provided at different metal layers having an insulating film therebetween"
recited in claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(2) Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that Song in combination with Takahashi and Yamamoto
would have suggested line on glass type signal lines applying driving signals
to driver integrated circuits for driving the gate lines and/or the data lines as
required by claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103; and
(3) Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that Song in combination with Takahashi and Yamamoto
would have suggested a width of the first line is greater than a width of the
second line as required by claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Although the Specification discloses line on glass type signal lines
located outside the picture display part as the preferred line on glass
type signal lines, the Specification as a whole does not limit the
claimed line on glass type signal line recited in claim 1 to such
location. (See, e.g., Spec. ¶ [0031]).
2. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that
The limitation "line on glass" is not considered to be limited to
lines outside the pixel array area . . . Rather, "line on glass" is
considered to read on any line not inside any sub-pixel. In other
words, data lines on the substrate that are not pixel electrodes meet
Appellant's [sic] "line on glass". Clearly, lines on glass are also
used outside the pixel array area to connect the signal lines to their
driving integrated circuits . . ."
(Compare Ans. 12 with Br. 4-7).
4
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

3. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that
Song has with reference to Figures 16 and 17A, a TFT [thin
film transistor] substrate of pixels (Pxl, Px2, Px3, and Px4)
(Applicant's [sic] "a picture display part having a plurality of liquid
crystal cells, each of which is arranged at each crossing area
between gate lines and data lines"), upper and lower first signal
lines (Gup and Gdown) and left and right auxiliary gate signal
lines (la and 1b) which cross each other in a periphery of the pixel
electrodes and there is an insulation layer between the signal lines
(Column 6, Lines 18-21) (Applicant's [sic] "wherein said line on
glass type signal lines are separately provided at different metal
layers having an insulating film there between").

Please further note, that, the upper and lower first signal lines of
the Song reference (Gup and Gdown) trace a border around the
pixel electrodes and thus they are provided at an outer area of the
display part.
. . . .

. . . a switching element has a first terminal connected to the
upper first signal line and a third terminal connected to the second
signal line (Column 6, Lines 41-45) (Applicant's [sic] "wherein
said line on glass type signal lines are provided separately at a gate
metal layer and a source / drain metal layer that have the gate
insulating film there between").

(Compare Br. 4-7 with Ans. 4 and 7).

4. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's Official Notice statement
that it is well known in the art to have "[g]ate and data lines . . .
extend out into the rectangular boarder [sic: border] region
surrounding the entire pixel array to become portions of the driving
circuit lines, and they are patterned from the same metal layer as the
5
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

wider lines in the boarder region." (Compare Br. 4-7 with Ans. 12,
15, and 16).
5. The Specification at ¶¶ [0050] and [0026] discloses a line on glass
type signal line and a gate line as having, inter alia, a gate metal layer
and a source/drain metal layer having a gate insulating film
therebetween.
6. Song states that ". . . the upper and lower first signal lines and the
right and left auxiliary signal lines cross each other along the
periphery of the pixel electrode via an insulation layer . . ." (Song,
col. 6, ll. 18-21).
7. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding (Compare Br. 3-7
with Ans. 9) that Takahashi teaches "the claimed semiconductor
integrated circuits (GDRC, DDRC) connected by line on glass bus
lines (GBL, DBL) . . . [in order to] lower[] production cost[s] . . ."
(Compare Ans. 5 and 9 with Br. 4-7). In this regard, Takahashi
teaches flexible printed circuits GFPC and PFPC sending signals to
semiconductor integrated circuits GDRC and DDRC via bus lines
GBL and DBL to connect the driver integrated circuits to each other
in order to provide connection reliability and narrowing of the display
frame that ultimately results in lower production costs. (Takahashi, ¶¶
[0197]-[0202]).
8. Yamamoto at col. 14, ll. 5-16 teaches that
With this structure, since the leading lines are formed outside of
the region where the plurality of pixel electrodes are formed, the
materials and widths of the leading lines do not affect the aperture
ratio and display quality of the liquid crystal display device. Thus,
the connecting lines provided in the two regions can be connected
6
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

to each other by the leading lines which are formed by a metal of
low resistance and have an increased width, thereby permitting a
further decrease in the signal delay in the reference signal line can
be reduced by a design, and thereby improving the aperture ratio of
the pixel.

9. Yamamoto at col. 8, l. 65 to col. 9, l. 6 teaches that
[I]n order to lower the wiring resistance, for example, it is
preferred that the width of each of the first and second connecting
lines 22a, 22b and leading lines 23a, 23b is wider than the width of
each of the scanning lines 19 and reference signal lines 7.
Furthermore, since the first and second connecting lines 22a, 22b
and leading lines 23a, 23b are arranged outside of the image
display area of the pixel substrate 1, the increase in the their [sic]
width does not affect the aperture ratio and brightness.

10. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's determination that it would
have been obvious to employ Takahashi's line on glass and integrated
circuit structure and Yamamoto's line arrangement in Song's TFT
substrate. (Compare Br. 4-6 with Ans. 4-17).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During prosecution of a patent application, “the PTO applies to the
verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). "[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the
meaning of particular claim terms . . . the context in which a term is used in
the asserted claim can be highly instructive." Philips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
7
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

A factual finding not shown by Appellants to be erroneous may be
accepted as fact. In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 426 n. 3 (CCPA 1964). In
addition, “[w]here the appellant has failed to challenge a fact judicially
noticed and it is clear that he has been amply apprised of such finding so as
to have the opportunity to make such challenge, the board's finding will be
considered conclusive by this court.” In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091
(CCPA 1970).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires
a determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the
subject matter of a claim would have been obvious] need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007).
"[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
“[W]here the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed
[invention] . . . the burden (and opportunity) then falls on an applicant to
rebut that prima facie case. Such rebuttal or argument can consist of . . .
[any] argument or presentation of evidence that is pertinent.” In re Dillon,
919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc) (emphasis omitted).
8
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS
ISSUE 1: Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that Song teaches or would have suggested the feature "said
first and second lines of said line on glass type signal lines are separately
provided at different metal layers having an insulating film therebetween"
recited in claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Song teaches
signal lines (Gup and Gdown) and auxiliary signal lines (1a and 1b) crossing
each other with an insulation layer therebetween (i.e., the signal and
auxiliary signal lines are separately provided at different metal layers having
an insulating film therebetween). (FF 3, 6). Nor do Appellants dispute the
Examiner's finding that the signal and auxiliary signal lines running within
each pixel correspond to the claimed gate lines and/or data lines and that the
signal and auxiliary signal lines running outside each pixel correspond to the
claimed line on glass type signal lines. (FF 2, 3).
Moreover, it is undisputed that the claimed line on glass type signal
lines include the structure of these signal and auxiliary signal lines running
outside each pixel. (FF 2, 3, 5, 6). Specifically, the structure of Song's
signal and auxiliary signal lines, like the structure of Appellants' line on
glass type signal lines, is a gate metal and a source/drain metal having a gate
insulating film therebetween. (FF 3, 5, 6).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's determination that Song's
signal and auxiliary signal lines within each pixel correspond to the claimed
gate and/or data lines and that Song's signal and auxiliary signal lines
outside each pixel correspond to the claimed line on glass type signal lines.
9
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

In this regard, Song's signal and auxiliary signal lines (first and second lines)
comprise two metal layers separated by an insulating layer, as required by
claim 1. (FF 3, 6).
Thus, it follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in determining that Song teaches or would have suggested the feature
"said first and second lines of said line on glass type signal lines are
separately provided at different metal layers having an insulating film
therebetween" recited in claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

ISSUE 2: Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that Song in combination with Takahashi and Yamamoto
would have suggested line on glass type signal lines applying driving signals
to driver integrated circuits for driving the gate lines and/or the data lines
as required by claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
Appellants argue that because Yamamoto fails to disclose the feature
"line on glass type signal lines applying driving signals to driver integrated
circuits for driving the gate lines and/or the data lines" recited in claim 1, the
rejection under § 103 is improper. (Br. 6). We disagree.
It is well settled that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Here, the Examiner relies on Takahashi
and not Yamamoto to teach this disputed claim feature.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Takahashi
teaches "the claimed semiconductor integrated circuits (GDRC, DDRC)
connected by line on glass bus lines (GBL, DBL) . . . [in order to] lower[]
10
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

production cost[s] . . ." (FF 7). In this regard, Takahashi teaches flexible
printed circuits GFPC and PFPC sending signals to semiconductor
integrated circuits GDRC and DDRC via bus lines GBL and DBL to connect
the driver integrated circuits to each other in order to provide connection
reliability and narrowing of the display frame that ultimately results in lower
production costs. (FF 7).
Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner's determination that it
would have been obvious to employ, inter alia, Takahashi's line on glass and
integrated circuit structure in Song's TFT substrate.2 (FF 10).
Therefore, it follows that Appellants have not shown reversible error
in the Examiner's determination that Song in combination with Takahashi
and Yamamoto would have suggested line on glass type signal lines
applying driving signals to driver integrated circuits for driving the gate lines
and/or the data lines as required by claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

ISSUE 3: Have Appellants shown reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that Song in combination with Takahashi and Yamamoto
would have suggested a width of the first line is greater than a width of the
second line as required by claim 1 within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
Appellants argue that because Yamamoto does not teach "that the
width of one of the leading lines 23 and 23b is greater than that of the other
leading line," the rejection under § 103 is improper. (Br. 6). We disagree.

2 We note that a discussion of Yamamoto is unnecessary to resolve the issue
raised.
11
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

As stated above, Song's signal and auxiliary signal lines (first and
second lines) comprise two metal layers separated by an insulating layer. It
is undisputed that these metal layers run inside and outside the rectangular
border region surrounding the entire pixel array (picture display part). (FF
2-4). Song, however, does not mention a width of the first line is greater
than a width of the second line. (FF 2-4).
Yamamoto teaches a display area having a pixel substrate. (FF 3, 8-
9). Yamamoto states (FF 9) that
[T]he width of each of the first and second connecting lines 22a, 22b
and leading lines 23a, 23b is wider than the width of each of the
scanning lines 19 and reference signal lines 7. Furthermore, since the
first and second connecting lines22a, 22b and leading lines 23a, 23b
are arranged outside of the image display area of the pixel substrate 1,
the increase in the their [sic] width does not affect the aperture ratio
and brightness.

Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's determination that it would
have been obvious to employ, inter alia, Yamamoto's line arrangement in
Song's TFT substrate. (FF 10). As correctly stated by the Examiner (Ans.
10):
This modification results in peripheral (outside display region)
portions of signal lines being wider than portions of signal lines inside
the display region. Therefore, portions of the upper layer lines . . .
will be wider than portions of the lower layer lines . . . and portions of
the lower layer lines will be wider than portions of the upper layer
lines . . .

In other words, Song, in combination with Yamamoto, would have
suggested, inter alia, upper and lower layers of line on glass type signal
lines. Each of these line on glass type signal lines has two sections: (1) a
12
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

wide section located outside the picture display part and (2) a narrower
section located inside the picture display part (but outside the pixel areas).
Thus, the upper layer's wide section located outside the picture display
part (corresponding to the claimed first line) has a greater width than the
lower layer's narrower section located inside the picture display part
(corresponding to the claimed second line). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner's determination that the Song in combination with Takahashi and
Yamamoto would have suggested the feature "a width of the first line is
greater than a width of the second line" as required by claim 1.3
Thus, it follows that Appellants have not shown reversible error in the
Examiner's determination that Song in combination with Takahashi and
Yamamoto would have suggested a width of the first line is greater than a
width of the second line as required by claim 1 within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Therefore, because the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness, we determine that the burden properly shifted to Appellants to
present persuasive arguments or evidence refuting the Examiner’s prima
facie case. However, on this record, Appellants have not done so.
Accordingly, based on the factual findings set forth in the Answer and
above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined disclosures of Song, Takahashi, and
Yamamoto.

3 We note that a discussion of Takahashi is unnecessary to resolve the issue
raised.
13
Appeal 2008-4917
Application 10/300,778

ORDER
On this record, the decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

cam

MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
SONG K. JUNG
1900 K STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20006
14