Ex Parte Koo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2013

10959976 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAE-BON KOO, BYOUNG-DEOG CHOI, MYEONG-SEOB SO, and WON-SIK KIM, ____________ Appeal 2011-007574 Application 10/959,976 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007574 Application 10/959,976 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 1-5, 12, and 14-16. Claims 6-11, 13, and 17-23 were withdrawn. (App. Br. 3). Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION This invention relates to "gate-body contact thin film transistor having a gate electrode connected with an impurity region for a body contact formed in an active layer." (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A thin film transistor comprising: [a] an active layer formed on an insulating substrate and having a channel region, a source region, and a drain region; [b] a gate electrode arranged corresponding to the channel region of the active layer; [c] a body contact region physically contacting the channel region and being separated from the source region and the drain region in the active layer; [d] a source electrode connected to the source region and a drain electrode connected to the drain region; and [e] a conductive wiring for connecting the body contact region and the gate electrode, [f] wherein the conductive wiring physically contacts the gate electrode, [g] wherein the body contact region is an impurity region and the channel region is an intrinsic region, and [h] wherein the conductive wiring and the gate electrode are formed directly on the same layer. Appeal 2011-007574 Application 10/959,976 3 (Steps lettered and disputed limitation emphasized). REJECTIONS R1. Claims 1-5, 12, and 14-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 6,104,040 ("Kawachi"). R2. Claims 1-5 and 14-16 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 11/760,876 (now U.S. Patent 8,013,337, issued on Sept. 6, 2011) in view of Kawachi. RELATED PRIOR DECISIONS Appeal No. 2012-003394 (Application No. 11/760,869), mailed June 24, 2013. (Examiner Affirmed). Appeal No. 2012-003500 (Application No. 11/760,864), mailed August 27, 2013. (Examiner Reversed). ANALYSIS R1. Issue: Under Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding Kawachi would have taught or suggested [h] "wherein the conductive wiring and the gate electrode are formed directly on the same layer," within the meaning of claim 1 and the commensurate language of claim 14? Appellants contend: Even if Kawachi's first wiring electrode 105 may physically contact the gate electrode 10, Kawachi is silent regarding the first wiring electrode 105 and the gate electrode 10 being formed directly on the same layer. Further, Figure 13 is a plan view of the device and does not show that the first wiring electrode 105 and the gate electrode 10 are formed directly on the same layer. (Reply Br. 7; App. Br. 10). Appeal 2011-007574 Application 10/959,976 4 Appellants' contentions are persuasive. The Examiner relies upon Kawachi's statement "[a] first wiring electrode 105 coupling gate electrode 10 of the TFT with the input terminal Vin is provided extending to a protrusion of a TFT . . . " to teach or suggest limitation [f] where the first wiring electrode 105 ("the conductive wiring") "physically contacts" the gate electrode 10. (Kawachi col. 10, ll. 31-35; Fig. 12; Ans. 13). However, Kawachi's Figures 8, 9, 12, 13, and (col. 10, ll. 31-35) do not teach or suggest limitation [h] that the first wiring electrode 105 and the gate electrode 10 ("the conductive wiring and the gate electrode") "are formed directly on the same layer." Specifically, because Figure 9 does not show the first wiring electrode 105 and Figure 13 does not show the gate electrode 10, Figures 9 and 13 would not have taught or suggested the first wiring electrode 105 and the gate electrode 10 "are formed directly on the same layer." On this record, we find speculation would be required to affirm the Examiner's rejection. We decline to engage in speculation. Therefore, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection R1 of independent claims 1 and 14, as well as the rejection of associated dependent claims 2-5, 12, 15, and 16. R2. Issue: Under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting, did the Examiner err in concluding that claim 3 of copending Application No. 11/760,8761 and Kawachi, either alone or in combination, would have rendered obvious limitation [h] "wherein the conductive wiring and the gate electrode are formed directly on the same layer," within the 1 Now U.S. Patent Number 8,013,337 issued on Sept. 6, 2011. Appeal 2011-007574 Application 10/959,976 5 meaning of claim 1, and the commensurate language of claim 14? Appellants' contend claims 1 and 14 are non-obvious for reasons argued with respect to claim 1 and 14 in R1 above. (Reply Br. 8-9; App. Br. 11-13). We are persuaded by Appellants' contentions above that Kawachi would not have taught or suggested limitation [h] "wherein the conductive wiring and the gate electrode are formed directly on the same layer," within the meaning of claim 1, and the commensurate language of claim 14, for the reasons stated above. For these reasons, on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness-type double patenting rejection R2 of independent claims 1 and 14, and of claims 2-5, 15, and 16, which depend therefrom. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection R1 of claims 1-5, 12, and 14-16 under Â§ 103. We reverse the Examiner's rejection R2 of claims 1-5, and 14-16 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. REVERSED Vsh