Ex Parte Umezaki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2017

14285819 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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.
14/285,819 05/23/2014 Atsushi Umezaki 0553-0812.02 6296
24628 7590 09/11/2017
Husch Blackwell LLP
I-Iusch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
PATEL, SANJIV D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2697
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ATSUSHI UMEZAKI1
Appeal 2017-001486
Application 14/285,819
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 2 through 12.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a semiconductor liquid crystal display
device and arrangement of interconnecting components. {See paragraphs 1
and 337 of Appellant’s specification). Claim 2 is illustrative of the invention
and reproduced below:
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Semiconductor Energy
Lab. Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2
Appeal 2017-001486
Application 14/285,819
2. A semiconductor device comprising:
a shift register comprising:
a first wiring; and
a second wiring,
wherein the first wiring is capable of supplying an electric
potential,
wherein the second wiring is capable of supplying a signal,
wherein the second wiring has an opening portion,
wherein the first wiring has a first width,
wherein the second wiring has a second width, and
wherein the first width is smaller than the second width.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2003/0189542 Al; Oct. 9,
2003) (“Lee”) and Nakagawa et al. (US 2008/0316414 Al; Dec. 25, 2008)
(“Nakagawa”). Final Act. 2-9.2
ANALYSIS
Claims 2 through 4. 6, and 9 through 11.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 2 is in
error, as the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references is not supported
by the teachings of the references. App. Br. 10-15. Specifically, Appellant
argues the Examiner’s rationale to use the openings in the wiring to allow
light to properly irradiate and cure the sealing material is incorrect. App. Br
10. Appellant asserts that the wiring CKL1 and CKBL in Lee, which the
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 26, 2016
(“App. Br.”), Reply Brief filed November 4, 2016, the Final Office Action,
2
Appeal 2017-001486
Application 14/285,819
Examiner equates to the claimed wiring, does not overlap the sealing
material. App. Br. 11-12 (citing Fig 12 of Lee), Reply Br. 2-3. Further,
Appellant asserts that Lee teaches avoiding a situation where these lines
overlap the sealing material. Reply Br. 4 (citing Lee 117).
These arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rationale to combine Lee and Nakagawa. We concur with the Examiner that
the skilled artisan would consider modifying Lee to use Nakagawa’s
teaching of having openings in the wiring pattern to allow light to cure
bonding material between the substrates in the vicinity of the wiring.
Answer 5. While Lee in Figure 12 depicts the line CKL1 and CKBL1 as not
being in the sealing line area, Figure 13 depicts the end of the array where
these lines connect with CKBL2 and CKL2 (which are in the sealing line
area). Thus the skilled artisan would recognize that CKL1 and CKBL1 at
some point cross into the sealing line area. As such, Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner’s rationale is unreasonable, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 2 and 6, argued together. We
also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, and 9 through
11, which are similarly rejected and not separately argued.
Claims 5 and 12
With respect to claims 5 and 12, Appellant argues the claims recite
two transistors, which comprise an oxide semiconductor having a channel
region, which is a feature not taught by Lee. App Br. 15-17.
mailed November 20, 2015, and the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September
6, 2016 (“Answer”).
3
Appeal 2017-001486
Application 14/285,819
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments, as they do not
address the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner finds that Lee teaches
transistors with a channel region and takes Official Notice that use of an
oxide semiconductor layer is well known. Final Act. 5, Answer 7. Further,
the Examiner cites two patents to support the noticed facts. Final Act. 10,
Answer 7-8. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection relies not only on Lee to teach
the limitations of claims 5 and 12, but also on noticed facts which
Appellant’s argument in the Appeal Brief does not address. Appellant’s
arguments in the Reply Brief do address these findings. Reply Brief 5-7.
However, Appellant has not shown good cause as to why these arguments
could not have been presented earlier. As such, these arguments are not
considered, and are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1476
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is
not required to address arguments in Reply Brief that could have been
presented in the principal Appeal Brief); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 5 and 12, and we sustain the rejection of these claims.
Claims 7 and 8
With respect to dependent claims 7 and 8, Appellant argues the
Examiner’s rejection is in error because Lee does not teach the recited
openings. App. Br. 17. In particular, Appellant argues that the Examiner in
the rejection of independent claim 2 acknowledges that Lee does not teach
openings. Id.
The Examiner admits that the reliance upon Lee to teach the
limitations concerning the size of the openings is erroneous. Answer 8.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds the claim 7 and 8 limitations, concerning
4
Appeal 2017-001486
Application 14/285,819
the size of the openings, is taught by Nakagawa, Figures 2 through 5 and
paragraph 33.
Appellant, in the Reply Brief, does not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s new findings regarding Nakagawa and claims 7 and 8. Rather,
Appellant asserts the rejection is in error because the rationale to combine
Lee and Nakagawa is improper. Reply Br. 7.
As discussed above. Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s
rationale to combine Lee and Nakagawa is improper. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 2
through 12 is affirmed.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5