Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 26, 2012

11068902 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAE-SUNG KIM
____________

Appeal 2010-007706
Application 11/068,902
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007706
Application 11/068,902
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-11, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A method for fabricating a display device having a plurality
of gate lines and data lines on a mother substrate to define a plurality of
pixel portions, a plurality of gate pad portions and data pad portions coupled
to the plurality of gate lines and data lines, respectively, and at least one thin
film transistor arranged in each pixel portion, the method comprising:

forming a metal pattern in the pixel portion simultaneously with
removing a metal layer along an edge of the mother substrate.

Prior Art
Hong US 6,787,809 B2 Sep. 7, 2004

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hong.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Hong does not describe “forming a metal
pattern in the pixel portion simultaneously with removing a metal layer
along an edge of the mother substrate” as recited in claim 1. In particular,
Appellant contends that Hong does not describe removing a metal layer
Appeal 2010-007706
Application 11/068,902
3
along the edge of panel areas 110, 120, 130, and 140 shown in Figure 1.
App. Br. 5-6.
The Examiner finds that the edges shown in Figure 23A of Hong are
cleared of conductive material using a single etching step described in
column 18, lines 8-10. Ans. 8.
Appellant contends that column 18, lines 8-10 does not describe
etching the conductive layer along the edge of the substrate 10. Appellant
also contends that Figures 23A and 23B of Hong do not show the edge of the
substrate. Reply Br. 5-6.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not provided persuasive
evidence or explanation to establish that Hong describes “forming a metal
pattern in the pixel portion simultaneously with removing a metal layer
along an edge of the mother substrate” as recited in claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hong is reversed.

REVERSED

kis