SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 22, 2020

13936971 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 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.
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