Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 18, 2014

12138929 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte SU-JEONG KIM, KWANG-HYUN KIM,
NAM-SEOK LEE, JEONG-UK HEO,
and JI-YOON JUNG
_____________

Appeal 2012-004495
Application 12/138,929
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004495
Application 12/138,929

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–14 and 16–21. Claim 15 has been
withdrawn by Appellants. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF CASE
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. An array substrate comprising:
a gate line;
a data line crossing the gate line;
a first switching element electrically connected to the
gate line and the data line;
a pixel electrode electrically connected to the first
switching element, the pixel electrode including an opening
pattern;
a light-blocking wiring overlapping at least a portion of
the opening pattern in a plan view, the light-blocking wiring
including a convex-concave pattern; and
a storage line disposed such that the pixel electrode
overlaps at least a portion thereof, the storage line being
electrically connected to the light-blocking wiring.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5–9, and 12–14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2008/0055506 A1, Mar. 6,
2008) and Hashimoto (US 2007/0008474 A1, Jan. 11, 2007). Ans. 5–11.
Appeal 2012-004495
Application 12/138,929

3

The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Hashimoto, and Nakanishi (US 2007/0008444 A1,
Jan. 11, 2007). Ans. 11.
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Hashimoto, Hsu ’795 (US 2006/0066795 A1,
Mar. 30, 2006), and Hsu ’848 (US 2007/0013848 A1, Jan. 18, 2007). Ans.
11–12.
The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Hashimoto, and Oh (US 2008/0123044 A1, May
29, 2008). Ans. 12–13.
The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Hashimoto, and Lu (US 2008/0111955 A1, May
15, 2008). Ans. 13–15.
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Hashimoto, Lu, and Chiu (US 2006/0285047 A1,
Dec. 21, 2006). Ans. 15–16.
The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Huang, Hashimoto, Lu, and Song (US 2005/0036091 A1,
Feb. 17, 2005). Ans. 16–20.
The Examiner rejected claims 19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Song, Huang, and Hsu ’795. Ans. 20–24.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Huang and
Hashimoto teaches or suggests a light-blocking wiring overlapping at least a
Appeal 2012-004495
Application 12/138,929

4

portion of the opening pattern in a plan view as recited in exemplary claim 1,
and independent claims 18 and 19? Br. 9–11.
With respect to the dependent claims, Appellants’ arguments present
us with the same issue identified above with respect to claim 1 (Br. 11–13).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner cited Huang for all
the claim elements except for the light-blocking wiring, and Hashimoto for
the element missing in Huang. Ans. 6, 24–26.
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellants on pages 24 through 26 of the
Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions. We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to
rebut such findings including the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’
arguments. Therefore, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 5–26.

Appeal 2012-004495
Application 12/138,929

5

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–14 and 16–21 is
affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

msc