KABUSHIKI KAISHA KOBE SEIKO SHO(KOBE STEEL, LTD.)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 10, 2020

2020000720 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2020)

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.
15/327,296 01/18/2017 Mototaka OCHI 479936US 5049
22850 7590 11/10/2020
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
DIAZ, JOSE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/10/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
iahmadi@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOTOTAKA OCHI, YASUYUKI TAKANASHI, AYA MIKI,
HIROSHI GOTO, and TOSHIHIRO KUGIMIYA
Appeal 2020-000720
Application 15/327,296
Technology Center 2800
Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-000720
Application 15/327,296

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 5–16. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2
Appellant describes the invention as relating to a thin film transistor
with an oxide semiconductor thin film. Spec. 1. The thin film transistor is
suitable for display devices such as liquid crystal displays and organic EL
displays. Id. Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal and is
illustrative:
1. A thin film transistor, comprising:
a gate electrode,
a gate insulating film,
an oxide semiconductor thin film,
an etch stop layer for protecting the oxide semiconductor
thin film,
a source/drain electrode, and
a passivation film on a substrate, in this order,
wherein:
the oxide semiconductor thin film is in contact with the
passivation film only via the etch stop layer in a part other than
a channel region of the oxide semiconductor thin film,

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
KABUSHIKI KAISHA KOBE SEIKO SHO (KOBE STEEL, LTD.).
Appeal Br. 1.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated November 21,
2018 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 2, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”), and
the Examiner’s Answer dated August 30, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-000720
Application 15/327,296

3
the oxide semiconductor thin film is formed of an oxide
of metal elements In, Ga, and Sn and O and has an amorphous
structure, and an atomic ratio of each of the metal elements
relative to the total of In, Ga, and Sn satisfies the following
formulas (1) to (3):
0.30 ≤ In/(In +Ga+ Sn) ≤ 0.50 (1),
0.20 ≤ Ga/(In +Ga+ Sn) ≤ 0.30 (2), and
0.25 ≤ Sn/(In + Ga+ Sn) ≤ 0.45 (3);
the etch stop layer optionally contains SiNx, and the
passivation film contains SiNx,
both ends of the oxide semiconductor thin film in a
channel length direction and in a channel width direction are in
contact with the etch stop layer,
at least a part of the oxide semiconductor thin film is
crystallized, and
the thin film transistor has a mobility of 40 cm2/Vs or
more.

REJECTION AND REFERENCES
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5–
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Koezuka et al., US 8,809,154
B2, Aug. 19, 2014 (“Koezuka”) in view of Masashi et al., WO 2013/027391
(A1), Mar. 05, 2015 (“Masashi”).

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
Appeal 2020-000720
Application 15/327,296

4
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Appellant does not argue any claims separately. We therefore
limit our discussion to claim 1. All other claims stand or fall with that claim.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner finds that Koezuka teaches a thin film transistor having
most of claim 1’s recited structure. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Koezuka). The
Examiner finds that Koezuka does not explicitly teach an oxide
semiconductor thin film having claim 1’s recited composition. Id. at 3. The
Examiner finds, however, that Masashi teaches such a film. Id. (citing
Masashi). The Examiner determines that a person of skill in the art would
have modified Koezuka to include the metal oxide semiconductor thin film
as taught by Koezuka to improve carrier mobility and because such a thin
film was known in the art and would yield predictable results. Id. at 4–5.
Appellant argues that Koezuka lacks a thin film that satisfies claim 1’s
In-Ga-Sn composition formulas. Appeal Br. 5–6. This argument is
unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Masashi as teaching such a thin
film. See Ans. 6–7. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
Appellant also argues that certain conditions (i.e., crystallized oxide
semiconductor thin film, passivation film containing SiNx, and specific
configuration of the film) are required to achieve claim 1’s very high
channel mobility. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner, however, finds that Koezuka
Appeal 2020-000720
Application 15/327,296

5
teaches these conditions (Final Act. 2–3), and Appellant does not
persuasively dispute the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant argues that insulating layer 423 does not contain SiNx.
Appeal Br. 9. Claim 1, however, states that the etch stop layer
(corresponding, according to the Examiner, to the Koezuka insultating layer
423 (Final Act. 2)) optionally contains SiNx. Ans. 7. Thus, Koezuka may
satisfy claim 1 even if insulating layer 423 does not contain SiNx.
Appellant argues that Koezuka does not teach claim 1’s requirement
that “the oxide semiconductor thin film is in contact with the passivation
film only via the etch stop layer in a part other than a channel region of the
oxide semiconductor thin film.” Appeal Br. 9. The Examiner, however,
provides an extensive explanation as to why Koezuka teaches this recitation.
Ans. 7-10. Appellant does not persuasively dispute or otherwise identify
error in the Examiner’s findings, explanation, and reasoning in this regard.
Appellant argues that Masashi’s teachings cannot be applied to
Koezuka because “all materials of Koezuka’s oxide semiconductor thin film
includes Zinc.” Appeal Br. 10. The Examiner finds, however, that Koezuka
also teaches that other materials may be used. Ans. 6 (quoting Koezuka
6:23–27). Appellant does not dispute this finding and does not persuasively
dispute the Examiner’s stated reasons why a person of skill in the art would
have combined the teachings of Masashi and Koezuka.
Appellant argues that Masashi, even if combined with Koezuka, does
not teach the specific relationships of claim 1’s formulas (1) to (3). Appeal
Br. 10. The Examiner, however, finds that Masashi teaches material that
satisfies the recited formulas. Ans. 11 (citing Masashi). Appellant does not
persuasively identify any error in the Examiner’s finding in this regard.
Appeal 2020-000720
Application 15/327,296

6
Finally, Appellant argues that use of In-Ga-Sn oxide provides
unexpected results as compared to the In-Ga-Zn oxide of Koezuka. Appeal
Br. 7–9. In particular, Appellant argues that In-Ga-Sn provides superior high
mobility. Id. A party asserting unexpected results as evidence of
nonobviousness has the burden of proving that the results are unexpected. In
re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469–70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The evidence of
unexpected results also must also be reasonably commensurate with the
scope of the claims. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (explaining that applicant may overcome a prima facie case of
obviousness by showing unexpected results but the showing of unexpected
results “must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence
is offered to support” (internal quotes and citation omitted)). Superiority
alone is not sufficient to show that a result is unexpected. Pfizer, Inc. v.
Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]ny superior
property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-
obviousness” (emphasis in original)).
Here, Appellant relies on the data at Table 2 of the Specification to
establish unexpected results. Appeal Br. 7–9; Spec. 22–24. Appellant,
however, does not adequately explain why the proffered unexpected results
are commensurate in scope with claim 1. Indeed, Table 2’s data indicates
that many In-Ga-Sn-O compositions do not have improved mobility.
Appellant also does not adequately establish that superior mobility for
certain In-Ga-Sn-O films is unexpected. The preponderance of the evidence
supports that similarly improved mobility may be obtained from
compositions of Koezuka. Ans. 4 (citing Koezuka Fig. 13, 6:23–26).
Because Appellant does not adequately establish that Appellant’s evidence
Appeal 2020-000720
Application 15/327,296

7
of superior results is commensurate with claim 1 or is unexpected,
Appellant’s evidence does not outweigh the other evidence of obviousness
that is before us. Rather, after carefully weighing all evidence before us, we
determine the Examiner’s obviousness determination is well-supported.
Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify Examiner error, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5–16 103 Koezuka, Masashi 1, 2, 5–16
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 5–16
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED