Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

11969597 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111969,597 01/04/2008 Jeong II Kim
90323 7590 06/24/2016
Innovation Counsel LLP
2880 Lakeside Drive
Suite 200
Santa Clara, CA 95054-2818
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
KORY02582 US 1221
EXAMINER
LUBIT, RYAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
ptomail@innovationcounsel.com
docket@innovationcounsel.com
admin@innovationcounsel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEONG IL KIM, SEUNG SOO BAEK
CHANG SOO LEE, and MIN CHEOL LEE
Appeal2014-005357
Application 11/969 ,597 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, SHARON PENICK, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-15, and 17-18, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Display Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest.
(Appeal Br. 2.)
2 Claims 7 and 16 were cancelled. Claims 19-20 were withdrawn. (Appeal
Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-005357
Application 11/969,597
Invention
Appellants' invention concerns a gate driving circuit including a
plurality of stages. Each stage comprises a gate pad, a pull-up transistor, a
gate electrode of the pull-up transistor and a drain electrode of the pull-up
transistor, a capacitor with a first and second electrode, a holding transistor,
and a switching transistor, connected in a specified manner. (Abstract.) In
each stage a contact portion (connected to a gate electrode of the switching
transistor) and the second electrode of the capacitor are disposed on different
layers, and are connected via a contact hole. (Spec. i-fi-1 77, 80, 82, Figs. 5A,
5B.)
Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized:
1. A gate driving circuit comprising:
a plurality of stages each stage comprising:
a gate pad formed at one end of a gate line;
a pull-up transistor outputting a gate driving signal
for driving the gate line;
a capacitor formed with a dielectric substance
disposed between a first electrode connected to a gate
electrode of the pull-up transistor and a second electrode
connected to a drain electrode of the pull-up transistor;
a first conductive line connecting the gate pad to the
second electrode;
a holding transistor connected to the pull-up
transistor to maintain a voltage level of the gate driving
signal;
a switching transistor connected to the pull-up
transistor and the capacitor to control the holding
transistor through the gate driving signal; and
a second conductive line connecting the second
electrode to a contact portion via a contact hole, the
contact portion connected to the gate electrode of the
switching transistor,
2
Appeal2014-005357
Application 11/969,597
wherein, in a plan view, the gate pad has a first side
positioned adjacent and spaced apart from a first side of
the second electrode and the contact portion has a first side
positioned adjacent the first side of the second electrode,
wherein the second electrode and the contact
portion are disposed on different layers.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 9, 11-13, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Moon (US 2005/0008114
Al, pub. Jan. 13, 2005), Koyama et al. (US 2004/0263508 Al; pub. Dec. 30,
2004) ("Koyama"), Jung (US 2007/0164289 Al; pub. July 19, 2007), and
Kim (US 6,900,856 B2, iss. May 31, 2005) ("Kim"). (Final Action 3-15.)
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Moon, Koyama, Jung, Kim
and Lim et al. (US 7,760,317 B2; iss. July 20, 2010) as evidenced by Wu et
al. (US 2007/0170469 Al; pub. July 26, 2007). (Final Action 15-18.)
The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Moon, Koyama, Jung, Kim, Park et al.
(US 6,995,742 B2; iss. Feb. 7, 2006) and Furuhashi et al. (US 5,818,409; iss.
Oct. 6, 1998). (Final Action 18-20.)
Issues
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Moon,
Koyama, Jung, and Kim teaches or suggests the claim limitation of "a
second conductive line connecting the second electrode to a contact portion
3
Appeal2014-005357
Application 11/969,597
via a contact hole" and "the second electrode and the contact portion are
disposed on different layers" as in claim 1?
We address only this issue, which is dispositive. Consequently, we do
not reach additional, non-dispositive issues raised by Appellants' arguments.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Moon, Koyama, Jung and
Kim does not teach "a second conductive line connecting the second
electrode to a contact portion via a contact hole" and "the second electrode
and the contact portion are disposed on different layers," as in claim 1.
(Appeal Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 3---6.)
The Examiner finds that Moon teaches or suggests these disputed
elements, but does not explicitly teach the connection being via a contact
hole, rather showing the connection as a node on a circuit diagram. (Final
Action 4--5.) However, the Examiner finds that Koyama teaches that "nodes
illustrated in circuit diagrams with regard to display technology may refer to
a connection of elements via a contact hole." (Id. at 5.) No physical
combination of Moon and Koyama is used by the Examiner in the rejection.
(Answer 21.) Rather, the Examiner explains that Koyama is used to show
that "nodes illustrated in circuit diagrams with regard to display technology
may refer to a connection of elements via a contact hole." (Final Action 5.)
"Koyama demonstrates that it is known in the art that in circuit diagrams, an
illustrated node connects two elements via a contact hole. This teaching
requires that the two elements are on separate layers, otherwise a contact
hole would not be necessary." (Answer 20-21.)
Appellants argue that the circuit diagram relied upon in "Moon is a
schematic diagram, not a layout diagram." (Reply Br. 4.). Appellants argue
4
Appeal2014-005357
Application 11/969,597
ivfoon's circuit diagram "does not disclose the relative positions of the
circuit elements as actually structured and arranged in the actual device" and
that the node which the Examiner points out is described as including a
connection through a contact hole is represented in the circuit diagram only
by an "indication ... of where two portions of the circuit are connected."
(Reply Br. 4.)
We agree with the Appellants. Although the Examiner is correct that
two nodes of Koyama's Figure 6 include a connection "via a contact hole,"
other identically drawn nodes of Figure 6 represent a connection "via a
wiring obtained by patterning ... conductive film" or a connection via "an
impurity region in common." (Koyama i-f 90.) Thus, the Examiner is correct
that Koyama shows that the node in Moon may refer to a connection via a
contact hole, but Koyama also shows that other specific connections are
possible. Generally, as Appellants note, a node "is just an indication in the
diagram [that] two portions of the circuit are connected." (Reply Br. 4.)
There is no indication that the Examiner has presented a reason to
combine the specific contact hole teaching of Koyama, as opposed to the
other connections taught in Koyama and known in the art, with the teachings
in Moon, to show that a combination in which the nodes depicted in Moon
teach or suggest a connection of elements on two different layers via a
contact hole. Although the Examiner finds that a contact hole is "strongly
implied" by the disclosure of Moon (Answer 21 ), we find no evidence of
such implication.
Accordingly, because Appellants have shown at least one error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, of independent claim 9 which
recites commensurate limitations, and of claims 2-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-18
5
Appeal2014-005357
Application 11/969,597
which depend from claims 1and9, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-15, and 17-18.
REVERSED
6