Ex parte ATHERTON

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 28, 1998

08472836 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 28, 1998)

Application filed June 7, 1995. According to appellant, it is a divisional1
application of application 08/277,824, filed July 20, 1994, now Patent No. 5,483,366,
issued January 9, 1996.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JAMES H. ATHERTON
_____________
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,8361
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT and LEE, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 13, 14 and
16-19. Claims 3, 8-12, 15, and 20-24 have been cancelled. No
claim has been allowed.
References relied on by the Examiner
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
2
Shimada et al. (Shimada) 5,159,477
Oct. 27, 1992
Kim et al. (Kim) 5,339,181 Aug.
16, 1994
Miyata et al. (Miyata) 5,351,145 Sep.
27, 1994
The rejections on appeal
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16 and 17 stand finally
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Miyata and Kim.
Claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata, Kim, and
Shimada.
The appellant has stated that all of the claims on appeal
stand or fall together. (Br. at 5).
The Invention
The invention is directed to a liquid crystal display
wherein a select line and at least one extension from the
select line forms a capacitor with an overlapped portion of a
region of conductive material in a pixel. Claims 1 and 13 are
the only independent claims. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A liquid crystal display comprising:
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
3
a base plate having a surface;
at least one pixel on said surface of the base plate,
said pixel including a region of a conductive material having
a plurality of sides;
a conductive select line of substantially uniform width
extending over and across said region adjacent one side
thereof so as to overlap said region;
at least one conductive extension from the select line
over and across another side of the region;
a layer of a dielectric material between the region and
the select line and its extension;
said select line and extensions forming with the region a
capacitor which is electrically connected to said region; and
a data line of a conductive material extending along a
side of the region and electrically connected to the region.
Opinion
We affirm.
Our opinion is based solely on the arguments made by the
appellant in the appeal and reply briefs. Arguments which
could have been raised but which were not are not before us,
are not at issue, and are considered waived.
The appellant correctly points out (Br. at 6) that each
of claims 1 and 13 recite that the select line is of
substantially uniform width and extends over and across the
pixel region of conductive material adjacent one side thereof
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
4
so as to overlap the region. According to the examiner, this
feature is disclosed by Miyata simply because the select line
7 extends over the top of each pixel area 17 (see Miyata’s
Figure 2). We disagree. The broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim language in light of the
specification does not permit reading the claimed overlap
between the select line and the conductive material of the
pixel region to form a capacitor therewith as being satisfied
by the select line’s being "above" a side of the pixel area.
In our view, and consistent with the specification, the
overlap is in the plane of the surface of the pixel area. For
making the overlap, the claims also require a crossing over of
the pixel region by the select line, which is not met simply
by a select line which runs outside the perimeter of the pixel
region as is shown in Figure 2 of Miyata.
Nevertheless, Kim makes up for the deficiency of Miyata.
It cannot be reasonably disputed that in Kim the select line
extends over and across the surface area of the pixel region
to form an overlap therewith. What the appellant argues,
instead, is that the select line which crosses over the top of
Kim’s pixels is not of substantially uniform width as is
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
5
required by the claims. But the argument is misplaced. The
appellant evidently looks merely at Figure 1A of Kim which
illustrates the prior art, and not at Figure 2A of Kim which
illustrates an improvement over the structure of Figure 1A.
In Figure 2A of Kim, the select line above the extensions
therefrom does indeed overlap the top border of the pixels and
does have a substantially uniform width. The extensions begin
from that part of the select line which is already below the
top border of the pixels. The appellant cannot look only at
portions of Kim’s disclosure to the exclusion of other
embodiments which meet the feature at issue.
As for the extensions which run down another side of the
pixel area, Kim discloses that as well. See Kim’s Figure 2A.
In that regard, the appellant makes no contrary assertion.
What the appellant does argue, however, is that the teachings
of Kim are not combinable with the disclosure of Miyata. The
appellant correctly points out that Kim’s invention sought to
reduce the size of the extensions covering the pixel’s active
area without diminishing the capacitance (Br. at 8).
According to the appellant, because Miyata’s select line does
not even overlap any portion of the pixel, there is no
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
6
occasion for application of Kim’s invention. In other words,
the argument is that because Miyata does not suffer the same
problem as the prior art addressed by Kim, Kim’s invention has
no application in Miyata. For several reasons, the
appellant’s argument is misplaced.
It is not entirely accurate to state that Miyata does not
have the same problem of pixel areas being taken up by
capacitor structures. If one with ordinary skill in the art
wanted to increase the capacitance afforded in Miyata, he or
she would likely confront the same problem, i.e., at some
point an expansion of the width of the select line would take
up additional active pixel area. More importantly, a
reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way
of technology and is not limited to the particular invention
it is describing and attempting to protect. EWP Corp. v.
Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25
(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). Kim’s
disclosure teaches two additional advantages which do not
focus on yielding more capacitance with less active pixel area
overlap.
In Kim’s column 5, lines 40-47, it is stated:
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
7
Thus, the present invention reduces the
amount of Leak Light emitted through the
Aperture Area of the front glass substrate
101 by an amount which is proportional to
the difference (2 -2 ), relative to the2 1
aforesaid prior art active matrix LCD,
thereby significantly increasing the
contrast ratio thereof, vis-a-vis that of
said prior art active matrix LCD.
In Kim’s column 5, lines 48-64, it is stated:
Yet further, as can be most clearly
seen in FIG. 2C, in the present invention,
an edge portion of each pixel electrode 4
preferably overlaps the first electrode 10
of its associated storage capacitor C by a
predetermined width sufficient to ensure
that the peripheral boundary of each pixel
electrode 4 is formed on the same plane as
the first electrode 10 of its associated
storage capacitor C, without having to
traverse an abrupt step. By contrast, with
the prior art active matrix LCD, an abrupt
step is necessarily formed at the boundary
between each pixel electrode 4 and the
distal edge of the first electrode 10 of
its associated storage capacitor C. As
such, problems such as attenuation or
cracking of the pixel electrode pattern due
to inadequate step coverage are inevitable,
thereby resulting in decreased yield and
increased manufacturing difficulties and
costs. The present invention eliminates
these problems.

For both of the above-quoted disclosed advantages, one
with ordinary skill in the art would have known to implement
Kim’s select line pattern in the crystal display of Miyata.
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
8
For all of the foregoing reasons, we agree with the
examiner that the inventions of claims 1 and 13 are
unpatentable over Miyata and Kim. Because the appellant has
stated that all claims on appeal stand or fall together (Br.
at 5), we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14,
16 and 17 as being unpatentable over Miyata and Kim. With
regard to the rejection of claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 over Miyata,
Kim, and Shimada, the appellant does not make any argument in
addition to those made in connection with the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16 and 17 over Miyata and Kim.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 6, 7, 18
and 19 as being unpatentable over Miyata, Kim, and Shimada.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 13, 14, 16 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata and
Kim is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata, Kim, and Shimada is
affirmed.
Because our discussion of the references shifted somewhat
from the examiner’s rationale, we denominate the affirmance as
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
9
a new ground of rejection to permit the appellant an
opportunity to address any new point raised in our reading of
the prior art.
In addition to affirming the examiner’s rejection of one
or more claims, this decision contains a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec.
1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197
(Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63,
122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides, "A new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes
of judicial review."
Regarding any affirmed rejection, 37 CFR § 1.197(b)
provides:
(b) Appellant may file a single request for
rehearing within two months from the date of the
original decision . . . .
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant,
WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new
ground of rejection to avoid termination of proceedings (37
CFR § 1.197(c)) as to the rejected claims:
(1) Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or a showing of facts relating to
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
10
the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
application will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request that the application be reheard
under § 1.197(b) by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences upon the same record. . . .
Should the appellant elect to prosecute further before
the Primary Examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(1), in
order to preserve the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§
141 or 145 with respect to the affirmed rejection, the
effective date of the affirmance is deferred until conclusion
of the prosecution before the examiner unless, as a mere
incident to the limited prosecution, the affirmed rejection is
overcome.
If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner
and this does not result in allowance of the application,
abandonment or a second appeal, this case should be returned
to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences for final
action on the affirmed rejection, including any timely request
for rehearing thereof.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
Appeal No. 97-2860
Application 08/472,836
11
AFFIRMED-196(b)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
sd
William J. Burke
Law and Patents
David Sarnoff Research Center Inc.
CN 5300
Princeton, NJ 08543-5300