SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 22, 20202019003890 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/936,971 07/08/2013 Yong-Koo Her 8054L-153 DIV 5920 22150 7590 05/22/2020 F. CHAU & ASSOCIATES, LLC 130 WOODBURY ROAD WOODBURY, NY 11797 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LAUREN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2871 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2020 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): garramone@chauiplaw.com mail@chauiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YONG-KOO HER, JIN JEON, YONG-HAN PARK, SANG-HOON LEE, and JI-SUK LIM ____________ Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DONNA M. PRAISS, and JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4–6, 15, and 19–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed July 8, 2013, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Nov. 16, 2017, Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed Mar. 15, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated Mar. 1, 2019, and Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Apr. 19, 2019. 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Samsung Display, Co. Ltd. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to a liquid crystal display, and more particularly, to “an array substrate having a gate driving circuit with an improved output characteristic and a display apparatus having the same.” Spec. 1:10–14. The Specification discloses enhancing the charging capacity of a capacitor when the channel layer between a source electrode and a gate insulating layer is partially removed to reduce the space between the source electrode and the gate electrode. Id. at 9:13–17. Claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative (disputed limitations italicized). 4. An array substrate comprising: a substrate having a display area and a peripheral area adjacent to the display area; a pixel array that receives a driving signal, the pixel army formed on the substrate corresponding to the display area; and a driving circuit having a plurality of stages, and formed on the substrate corresponding to the peripheral area, wherein each of the stages comprises: a first transistor having a gate electrode, a source electrode, a drain electrode, a gate insulating layer that electrically insulates the gate electrode from the source and drain electrode, and a channel layer disposed on the gate insulating layer, wherein the source electrode comprises: a main source electrode extending in a first direction and a plurality of sub source electrodes branched from a first side of the main source electrode, wherein the first side of the main source electrode extends in the first direction and is adjacent to the plurality of sub source electrodes, and a second side of the main source electrode extends in the first direction and is spaced apart from the first side along a second direction that is substantially perpendicular to the first direction, the drain electrode comprises a main drain electrode Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 3 extending in the first direction and a plurality of sub drain electrodes branched from the main drain electrode and arranged at predetermined intervals, wherein the main source electrode is spaced apart from the channel layer in a plan view so that the first side of the main source electrode between two adjacent sub source electrodes is overlapped by the gate electrode without the channel layer disposed therebetween. Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims Appendix). Independent claims 15, 24, and 28 are each directed to a display apparatus and similarly require that a main source electrode is overlapped by a gate electrode, at a first side or part of the main source electrode that is connected between two adjacent sub source electrodes, without the channel layer disposed therebetween. Id. at 14–15, 17–20 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects the claims as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 4–6, 15, 19, 23, 29, 30 103(a) Jang, 3 Chang4 20–22 103(a) Jang, Chang, Choo5 24–28, 31, 32 103(a) Jang, Chang, Kim 6 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. 3 US 2005/0041168 A1, published Feb. 24, 2005. 4 US 6,239,468 B1, issued May 29, 2001. 5 US 2003/0038913 A1, published Feb. 27, 2003. 6 US 2003/0222311 A1, published Dec. 4, 2003. Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 4 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 positions of both the Examiner and Appellant, we are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred for the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and discussed below. Rejection 1: Obviousness of Claims 4–6, 15, 19, 23, 29, and 30 The Examiner rejects claims 4–6, 15, 19, 23, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jang in view of Chang for the reasons provided in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 3–6. Appellant contends the Examiner’s reliance on Chang for teaching the claim limitation missing from Jang’s disclosure is in error because Chang’s Figure 5 shows “the first side of [source electrode] 473 overlaps channel layer 467.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s annotated Chang Figure 5 is reproduced below. Chang’s Figure 5 above is a plane view of a sensor showing source electrode 473, gate electrode 459, and semiconductor [channel] layer 467. Chang 4:29–30, 5:53–67. Appellant argues the identified overlap shows that Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 5 “Chang does not teach ‘wherein the main source electrode is spaced apart from the channel layer in a plan view so that the first side of the main source electrode between two adjacent sub source electrodes is overlapped by the gate electrode without the channel layer disposed therebetween’” as claim 4 recites. Appeal Br. 9 (quoting claim 4 with emphasis). The Examiner responds with annotated Chang Figures 5 and 6 below. Ans. 5. Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 6 Chang’s Figure 5 is a plane view of a sensor and Figure 6 is a sectional view along line VI-VI of Figure 5. Chang 4:29–32. The Examiner finds Chang’s Figures 5 and 6 show there is a portion of main source electrode 473f that is outside of semiconductor layer 467 (defined by the dashed line) that overlaps gate electrode 459d without the semiconductor layer therebetween. Ans. 4. The Examiner specifically identifies the part of the main source electrode overlapped by gate electrode 459 without the channel layer (semiconductor layer 467) disposed therebetween as the “portion of the electrode 473 facing the side 459d of the gate electrode 459.” Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 4 (“portion of the electrode 473 facing the side 459d of the gate electrode 459”). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of harmful error. Appellant asserts a new argument in the Reply Brief that the Examiner erred in identifying as the “first side” the circled side of Chang’s main source electrode 473f that does not have sub source electrodes branched therefrom. Reply Br. 5. Appellant directs us to, inter alia, claim 4’s requirement that “the first side of the main source electrode . . . is adjacent to the plurality of sub source electrodes” as well as similar language in independent claims 15, 24, and 28. Id. at 4, 6. Appellant argues the inner side of 473f opposite the Examiner-circled side may be said to correspond to the claimed “first side,” however, this side is overlapped by the gate electrode with the channel layer 467 disposed therebetween. Id. at 5. Even if we were to consider Appellant’s new argument presented in the Reply Brief, we are not persuaded of harmful error because the Examiner relied on Jang, rather than Chang, for teaching the plurality of sub source electrodes branched from a first side of the main source electrode. Final Act. 3 (citing Jang Figs. 10D–11, item 164). Appellant does not dispute the Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 7 Examiner’s finding (Ans. 6; Final Act. 4) that Chang’s Figure 5 shows a part of the main source electrode overlapped by the gate electrode without the channel layer disposed therebetween (the portion of electrode 473 facing side 459d of gate electrode 459 in Figure 5). In addition, the Examiner provided a rationale for modifying the electrodes of Jang such that the main source electrode is spaced apart from the channel layer in a plan view so that the first side of the main source electrode between two adjacent sub source electrodes is overlapped by the gate electrode without the channel layer disposed therebetween, namely, “to increase the channel for a fixed channel length and achieve a TFT that can increase the amount of the optical current flowing along the semiconductor layer without using the second gate electrodes.” Final Act. 4. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s reason for modifying Jang, nor does Appellant direct us to any reason why the asserted benefit would not be achieved in Jang’s array substrate so modified. Therefore, while the Examiner erred in finding Chang’s Figure 5 discloses claim 4’s “first side” of a main source electrode, we find this to be harmless error in view of the Examiner’s undisputed findings that Jang discloses the recited “first side,” that Chang discloses a part of the main source electrode overlapped by the gate electrode without the channel layer disposed therebetween, and that modifying Jang with this teaching of Chang would increase the amount of optical current flowing along the semiconductor layer without using the second gate electrodes. In view of the above, and for the reasons provided in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 over Jang in view of Chang. For the same reasons, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 15, 19, 23, 29, and 30 because Appellant relies on Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 8 the same argument presented with respect to claim 4. Appeal Br. 9–10; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rejection 2: Obviousness of Claims 20–22 The Examiner rejects claims 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jang and Chang in view of Choo for the reasons provided in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 6–8. Appellant relies on the direct and indirect dependency on claim 15 to assert patentability of claims 25–28, 31, and 32. Appeal Br. 10. Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in modifying Jang in view of the teachings of Chang for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 4, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 20–22 under § 103(a). Rejection 3: Obviousness of Claims 24–28, 31, and 32 The Examiner rejects claims 24–28, 31, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jang and Chang in further view of Kim for the reasons provided in the Final Office Action. Final Act. 8–12. Appellant directs us to claim 24’s recitation “a part of the main source electrode is overlapped by the gate electrode without the channel layer disposed therebetween, wherein the part of the main source electrode is a side of the main source electrode connected between two adjacent sub source electrodes” and asserts the arguments presented with respect to claim 4 are applicable to claim 24. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant relies on the direct and indirect dependency on claim 24 to assert patentability of claims 25–27, and 31. Id. at 11. Appellant asserts that the arguments presented with respect to claim 24 apply to independent claim 28 from which claim 32 depends. Id. Appeal 2019-003890 Application 13/936,971 9 Because we are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in modifying Jang in view of the teachings of Chang for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 4, we likewise affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 24–28, 31, and 32 under § 103(a). CONCLUSION For these reasons, and those the Examiner provides in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4–6, 15, and 19–32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed 4–6, 15, 19, 23, 29, 30 103(a) Jang, Chang 4–6, 15, 19, 23, 29, 30 20–22 103(a) Jang, Chang, Choo 20–22 24–28, 31, 32 103(a) Jang, Chang, Kim 24–28, 31, 32 Overall Outcome 4–6, 15, 19–32 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation