Ex Parte Yamazaki et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 2, 2009

10243680 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 2, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI
and
YASUYUKI ARAI

________________

Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided: December 2, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was held on October 8, 2009. We affirm.

Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a display device invention having a pixel with a pair
of current driver thin film transistors (TFTs). Each TFT includes a channel
region length with: (i) the TFT channel lengths arranged in different
directions from each other (independent claims 1 and 10); (ii) crystal growth
along a first TFT channel region length direction, and crystal growth
intersecting the other TFT channel region length direction (independent
claims 4 and 13); or (iii) a crystal grain boundary for one TFT channel
region extending along a channel length direction, and a crystal grain
boundary for the other TFT channel region extending so as to intersect a
channel length direction of the other TFT (independent claims 7 and 16).
Additionally, the current driver TFTs are parallel connected. 1 Claim 1, with
key disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative:
1. A display device comprising:
a pixel comprising a first current driver thin film transistor, a second current
driver thin film transistor and a light emitting element over a substrate;
wherein the first current driver thin film transistor and the second current
driver thin film transistor, each comprises a semiconductor region having at
least a source region, a drain region and a channel region,
wherein channel length directions of the respective first current driver thin
film transistor and the second current driver thin film transistor are
arranged in a different direction with each other,
wherein one of the source region and the drain region of the first current
driver thin film transistor and one of the source region and the drain region
of the second current driver thin film transistor are connected with the light

1 See generally Spec. 8:25 – 9:29; 10:25 – 11:19; 15:7-25; Figs. 1-5 and 7.
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

3
emitting element, and the other of the source region and the drain region of
the first current driver thin film transistor and the other of the source region
and the drain region of the second current driver thin film transistor are
connected with each other through a wiring so that a same potential is
applied to the other of the source region and the drain region of the first
current driver thin film transistor and the other of the source region and
the drain region of the second current driver thin film transistor, and
wherein the first current driver thin film transistor and the second current
driver thin film transistor have a common gate electrode.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:2
Sato US 2001/0024187 A1 Sep. 27, 2001
Koga US 6,355,940 B1 Mar. 12, 2002
Komiya US 6,501,448 B1 Dec. 31, 2002

The Examiner rejected claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Komiya and Koga.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or of the Examiner,
we refer to the Briefs and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments that Appellants could have made but did not make
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

2 Effective filing dates for these documents precede Appellants’ earliest
effective filing date and are not at issue.
3 We refer throughout this opinion to the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 30, 2006,
the Answer mailed Mar. 7, 2007, and the Reply Brief filed May 7, 2007.
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

4
Appellants’ Arguments
Appellants collectively argue the following three claim groups: (i)
independent claims 1 and 10, with their dependent claims 2, 3, 11, and 12
(App. Br. 3, 4); (ii) independent claims 4 and 13, with their dependent
claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 (App. Br. 4, 5); and (iii) independent claims 7 and 16,
with their dependent claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 (App. Br. 5). Appellants, for
each of these claim groups, collectively argue the claims without separately
arguing claims. Accordingly, for the first claim group we select claim 1 as
representative; for the second claim group we select claim 4 as
representative; and for the third claim group we select claim 7 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
For the first claim group, Appellants assert that nothing in Komiya or
Koga would motivate modification of the Komiya pixel transistors to be
arranged with different channel length directions as is described for the
Koga drain driver transistors (App. Br. 4). For the second claim group,
Appellants assert “neither Komiya, Koga, nor any proper combination of the
two describes or suggests” crystals are grown to extend along a first TFT
channel region length direction and other crystals are grown to intersect a
second TFT channel region length direction (App. Br. 4, 5). For the last
claim group, Appellants argue “no proper combination of Komiya and Koga
describes or suggests” a first crystal grain boundary extending along a first
TFT channel region length direction and a second crystal grain boundary
intersecting a second TFT channel region length direction (App. Br. 5).

Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

5
ISSUES

Under § 103 (a), have Appellants shown the Examiner erred by
finding the combination of Komiya and Koga teaching or suggesting
arranging a pair of pixel current driver TFTs to have:
(a) different channel region length directions, as recited in
representative claim 1;
(b) crystals grown to extend along a first TFT channel region
length direction, and other crystals grown to intersect a
second TFT channel region length direction, as recited in
representative claim 4; and
(c) a first crystal grain boundary extending along a first TFT
channel region length direction, and a second crystal grain
boundary intersecting a second TFT channel region length
direction, as recited in representative claim 7?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
Present Application
1. The application Specification discloses that variations between
display device TFT characteristics can cause pixel brightness
variations, and that this TFT characteristics variation caused
problem can be addressed by arranging a pair of pixel drive TFT
channel length directions to be different from each other to
thereby have “crystal growth direction[s] . . . made different from
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

6
each other in the respective semiconductor regions of the two
TFTs connected in parallel so that different electrical
characteristics are provided to the adjacent TFTs” (Spec. 4:8-12;
9:23-29; Fig. 1).
Komiya
2. Komiya discloses an electroluminescence display that uses a pair
of TFTs for each electroluminance (EL) element (i.e., pixel). TFT
characteristic variances that can cause non-uniform display
luminance between pixels are disclosed as being addressed by use
of multiple TFTs for each pixel (Abstract; Komiya, col. 1, ll. 9-11;
col. 2, ll. 14-19).
3. Komiya further discloses that characteristic variances for drive
TFTs can be caused during fabrication by laser annealing of
amorphous silicon when forming active region areas (Komiya,
col. 7, ll. 13-18).
4. According to Komiya, a pixel constitutes an EL element and a pair
of TFTs. These TFTs are arranged to provide uniform luminance
from each pixel by being parallel connected with a source
electrode 42 connected to an anode of an EL element 60, a drain
electrode 43 connected to a power supply 50, and gate electrodes
41 being commonly connected (Komiya, col. 2, ll. 48-65; col. 4,
ll. 7-16, 24-30; Fig. 4).
Koga
5. Koga discloses a semiconductor display device and a method for
manufacturing the semiconductor display device, which device
includes a plurality of parallel connected drive TFTs having
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

7
channel areas fabricated using laser annealing (Koga, col. 1, ll. 8-
15; col. 4, ll. 42-54).
6. According to Koga, there are disadvantages arising from using
laser annealing during TFT fabrication, because “[w]hen the laser
annealing is performed to . . . obtain[] a polycrystalized
semiconductor layer . . . , a defectively annealed area extending in
a certain direction is formed in the semiconductor layer and
overlaid on some of the plurality of channel areas . . . , and the
pertinent portions have defective performance characteristics”
(Koga, col. 4, ll. 55-63).
7. Koga further discloses that disadvantages arising from laser
annealing include formation of linear areas having “poor
crystallinity” at the sides of linear beam pulses, and also variations
in produced crystal grain sizes (Koga, col. 3, ll. 14-37).
8. To address defective laser annealing caused TFT characteristic
variations, Koga discloses connecting multiple TFTs in parallel,
and additionally arranging the parallel connected TFT channel
region lengths in different directions (e.g., orthogonal to each
other), so that the direction of annealing is both along and also
across different TFT channel region lengths (Koga, col. 4, l. 42 –
col. 5, l. 49).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An Examiner, in rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, must
establish a factual basis to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. See In
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

8
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Supreme Court has
further explained that:
[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavour at the
time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.

KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 10-12
Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-3 and 10-12 under § 103.
The Examiner finds, as do we, that Komiya discloses a display device
pixel having a light emitting element with a pair of TFTs connected in
parallel so that drain regions of first and second drive TFTs are connected to
the light emitting element, source regions are connected to a potential
supply, and the gates are commonly connected (Ans. 3, 4; FF 2, 4). Then,
the Examiner acknowledges that “Komiya does not expressly disclose that
the channel length directions of the two channel regions and/or the crystals
in the two regions can be arranged in different directions . . .” (Ans. 4).
Turning to Koga, the Examiner indicates that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
incorporate the perpendicularly arranged TFTs of Koga into the device of
Komiya, so that a display device with improved reliability and/or
performance would be obtained” (id.).
Appellants, however, assert as a general contention that “no proper
combination of Komiya and Koga describes or suggests current driver thin
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

9
film transistors that are formed in a pixel and are arranged such that their
channel length directions are different from each other . . .” (App. Br. 3)
(emphasis added). More specifically, Appellants indicate that “Komiya
describes an electroluminescence display having a pixel including current
driver thin film transistors 35 and 40 that . . . are arranged such that their
channel length directions are the same” (id.). With respect to Koga,
Appellants indicate that it alternatively describes:
(i) “with respect to Fig. 7, arranging transistors PV and PH of the
drain driver 4 such that their channels are perpendicular to each other
and are spaced from each other so that a defective crystallization
region R will not affect both of the transistors. (See Koga at 10, lines
28-41.);” but
(ii) “with respect to Fig. 8, . . . an alternative arrangement in which the
channels are arranged in parallel, but spaced from one another, and
Koga indicates that this arrangement will achieve the same benefits as
the arrangement of Fig. 7. (See Koga at col. 10, lines 42-57.)”

(App. Br. 3, 4) (italicized emphasis substituted for underlining). Relying on
these Koga disclosures, Appellants argue that modifying Komiya’s pixel
circuit with perpendicular channels “would not be appropriate at least
because doing so would require a significant modification of the circuit
arrangement already set forth in Fig. 5 of Komiya, and because Koga notes
that an alternative (the arrangement of Fig. 8) provides the same benefits as
the arrangement of Fig. 7” (App. Br. 4).
The Examiner addresses Appellants’ arguments premised from the
two Koga TFT channel region arrangements by refuting any implied
contention that Koga teaches away from the claimed invention. Specifically,
the Examiner explains that “[d]isclosed examples and preferred
embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

10
nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423
(CCPA 1971)” (Ans. 11). Since Koga does not criticize, discredit, or
discourage the perpendicular channel arrangement, we, therefore, concur
with the Examiner’s finding that the record fails to support a Koga teaching
away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior
art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a
teaching away from any . . . alternatives because such disclosure does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed . . . .”).
Further, the Examiner addresses Appellants’ assertions that modifying
Komiya with the Koga perpendicular channels would require significant
modifications by identifying these arguments as failing to provide any
meaningful evidence (Ans. 11). Indeed, the record exclusively includes
Appellants’ attorney arguments, which cannot substitute for evidence. Estee
Lauder Inc. v. L’oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
( “‘[A]rguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence lacking in the
record.’”) (citation omitted).
Appellants assert that “the Examiner places much significance on
Koga’s recognition that laser annealing may cause defects and Koga’s . . .
Fig. 7 . . . technique for addressing such defects,” and argue that Komiya
also recognized the cause of such defects and addressed them with parallel
connected TFTs (Reply Br. 2). Indeed, we also find Komiya and Koga
disclosing that laser annealing can cause TFT characteristic variations (FF 3,
6). However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument attempting to
dismiss Koga’s disclosure for combined TFT parallel connection and
perpendicular TFT channel region length direction solution. The record
includes a Komiya and Koga recognized TFT characteristic variation
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

11
problem caused by laser annealing (FF 3, 6, and 7), with both the Komiya
parallel TFT connection solution (FF 4), and the Koga parallel connection
with perpendicular channel directions solution (FF 8). Thus, the prior art
teaches a known problem with solutions, and, therefore, the Examiner’s
modifying Komiya with the Koga solution is reasonable. KSR, 550 U.S. at
420.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s rejection, and, therefore, we will sustain the rejection of
claim 1, and also claims 2, 3, and 11-12 that fall with claim 1.
Claims 4-6 and 13-15
Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 4-6 and 13-15 under § 103.
Appellants reference their prior arguments for claims 1-3 and 10-12,
and assert as a one sentence further argument that the “references similarly
fail to describe or suggest pixel driver transistors having crystal growth
directions oriented differently from their channel length directions” (App.
Br. 5). The Examiner notes that Appellants “fail[] to provide any
meaningful evidence to show that the . . . device collectively taught by
Komiya and Koga, if [it] meets all of the limitations and/or features recited
in claim[] 1 . . ., would not necessarily meet all of the limitations and/or
features recited in claim[] 4 . . ., given that all the channel regions in the
collectively taught device are formed though laser annealing . . .” (Ans. 14).
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

12
The record does not include such evidence submitted by Appellants, but
merely Appellants’ attorney arguments that cannot substitute for evidence.
Estee Lauder Inc., 129 F.3d at 595.
Instead, the Examiner finds, as do we, that Koga teaches fabrication of
TFT channel regions using laser annealing to produce “crystals . . . to grow
or extend along one of the two channel length directions and to intercept the
other of the two channel length directions” (Ans. 13, 14; FF 7, 8).
Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s position to be reasonable, and not
refuted by Appellants, that the reference combination under § 103 teaches
and suggests both the recited subject matter of representative claim 1 and,
therefore, also of representative claim 4.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s rejection, and, therefore, we will sustain the rejection of
representative claim 4, and also claims 5, 6, and 13-15 that fall with claim 4.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18
Based on the record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 7-9 and 16-18 under § 103.
Appellants reference their prior arguments for claims 1-3 and 10-12,
and assert as a one sentence further argument that the “references similarly
fail to describe or suggest pixel driver transistors having crystal growth
boundaries oriented differently from their channel length directions” (App.
Br. 5). The Examiner notes that Appellants “fail[] to provide any
meaningful evidence to show that the . . . device collectively taught by
Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

13
Komiya and Koga, if [it] meets all of the limitations and/or features recited
in claim[] 1 . . ., would not necessarily meet all of the limitations and/or
features recited in . . . claim[] 7 . . ., given that all the channel regions in the
collectively taught device are formed though laser annealing . . .” (Ans. 14).
The record does not include such evidence submitted by Appellants, but
merely Appellants’ attorney arguments that cannot substitute for evidence.
Estee Lauder Inc., 129 F.3d at 595.
Instead, the Examiner finds, as do we that Koga teaches fabrication of
TFT channel regions using laser annealing to produce “crystal grain
boundaries to grow or extend along one of the two channel length directions
and to intercept the other of the two channel length directions” (Ans. 13, 14;
FF 7, 8). Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s position to be reasonable,
and not refuted by Appellants, that the reference combination under § 103
teaches and suggests both the recited subject matter of representative claim 1
and, therefore, also of representative claim 7.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s rejection, and, therefore, we will sustain the rejection of
representative claim 7, and also claims 8, 9, and 16-18 that fall with claim 7.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-18 under § 103.

Appeal 2008-006257
Application 10/243,680

14
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 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

KIS

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P. O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022