Ex parte Vickers

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 24, 2001

08728878 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 24, 2001)

1–
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte KENNETH G. VICKERS
________________
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 4 and 5, the only claims pending in the application.
The invention is directed to field emission devices. In
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
2–
particular, by minimizing lead overlap, via bus width
reduction, the probability of interlevel oxide failures is
reduced.
Representative claim 4 is reproduced as follows:
4. An apparatus comprising:

a circuit board having at least a first metal layer and
a second metal layer, each said metal layer separated by an
insulating layer;
said second metal layer overlapping said first metal
layer in at least one region;
wherein said second metal layer has a monotonically
decreasing width.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Doshita 5,251,108 Oct. 5, 1993
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, based on an inadequate written description and a
nonenabling disclosure.
Claims 4 and 5 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(b) as anticipated by Doshita.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
3–
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
Turning first to the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as relying on an inadequate
written description, we will not sustain this rejection.
It is the examiner’s position that there is no support in
the original disclosure for the second metal layer having “a
monotonically decreasing width,” as now claimed. Both
appellant and the examiner agree that the original disclosure
recited a “step-like” design and/or “a non-uniform width” when
describing the second layer. However, it is the examiner’s
contention that step-like and/or non-uniform do not equate to
“monotonically decreasing,” as now claimed. We disagree.
As seen in Figure 10, the buses, or second layers, 82, 84
and 86 are, indeed, step-like or of non-uniform width. The
question is whether these layers are of a width that is
“monotonically decreasing.” By the examiner’s own definition,
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
4–
at the top of page 6 of the answer, citing from Webster’s II
New Riverside University Dictionary, 1994, monotonic refers to
“Designated sequences whose successive members either
consistently increase or decrease but do not oscillate in
relative value.” That is, even the examiner appears to agree
that a “monotonically decreasing width” is one that never
increases. As can be seen in Figure 10, each bus, 82, 84, 86
has a width which decreases as one moves from right to left.
See W3-W2-W1 in bus 82.
It is the examiner’s position, as explained in the answer
with regard to the Attachment A to the answer, that the width
of metal layer 82 is narrow at a, widens at b, narrows back to
c (which is even wider than a), widens to d and narrows back
to e. If the bus, or layer 82 in Figure 10 had the shape
attributed to it by the examiner, we would agree that the
width of such layer is not monotonically decreasing. However,
it is our view that the examiner’s explanation is faulty.
As is clear from the disclosure, the bus, or layer, 82
consistently narrows from a width W3 to width W2 to width W1.
Thus, the width is “monotonically decreasing.” The examiner
appears to think that certain parts of anode color stripes 50
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
5–
form part of the buses, or layers, 82, 84, 86. That is, as
the examiner explains it, at page 5 of the answer, referring
to Attachment A to the answer,
As clearly indicated by the line segment I,
the left-most conductor (50R) runs underneath
of strip (82). The lack of such a line at
the junction of the other two conductors
(50R) with strip (82) in figure 10, shows
that these other two conductors are in one
piece with the strip (82) (the dashed line at
these two junctions illustrates a coextensive
conductor on a lower level). Therefore, the
width of the metallic strip (82)fluctuates
stepwise, is nonuniform, but is in no way
monotonically increasing or decreasing.
We understand how the examiner arrived at this conclusion
but, in our view, the examiner has reached this conclusion
through obvious misrepresentations by the drawings rather than
by any disclosure of the instant specification. Clearly,
there should have been a line, similar to the one represented
by “I” in the examiner’s Attachment A, across each of the
strips 50R at the vias 60 in order to show that the strips 50R
are underneath layer 82. This appears to be an error in the
drawing itself, rather than an attempt to show the layer 82 as
having elongated fingers at the two middle portions where it
intersects with the middle strips 50R. It is suggested that
the drawings be corrected to show what is described in the
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
6–
specification prior to any patent issuing on this application.
Our decision herein is based on the assumption that layer
82 is meant to look like this:

In the unlikely event that the examiner’s assessment is
correct and layer 82 looks like this:
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
7–

it
would appear that the device would be inoperable since part of
the layer 82 would appear to blend into, and become, stripes
50R.
Since, for the reasons supra, we hold that there is,
indeed, an adequate written description, i.e., support, for
the claimed “monotonically decreasing width,” we will not
sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 5 based on the written
description portion of 35 U.S.C. 112. We also will not
sustain the rejection of these claims based on the enablement
portion of 35 U.S.C. 112 since the artisan would clearly have
been able to make and use the claimed invention by forming the
layers 82, 84 and 86 as shown in instant Figure 10, for
example, and in a manner shown supra.
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
8–
Turning, finally, to the rejection of claims 4 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), we also will not sustain this
rejection since, clearly, the metal layers 29, 29b, 29c of
Doshita are not
“monotonically decreasing” in width, as that term is
explained, supra.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 3 and 4 under
35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) is
reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2574
Application No. 08/728,878
9–
EK/RWK
ROSE ALYSSA KEAGY
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P.O. BOX 655474 M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 76265