Ex Parte Lee et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2012

11151276 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte HUN-JUNG LEE and JAE-BON KOO
________________

Appeal 2010-003890
Application 11/151,276
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003890
Application 11/151,276

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner‟s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 11,
1
which stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dimitrakopoulos, U.S. Patent No.
6,569,707 B2 (Dimitrakopoulos).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A thin film transistor (TFT), a method of fabricating the TFT,
and a flat panel display having the TFT, wherein the TFT
includes a substrate; a gate electrode provided on the substrate;
a gate insulating layer provided on the gate electrode; a source
electrode and a drain electrode provided on the gate insulating
layer and insulated from the gate electrode; and an organic
semiconductor layer contacting the source and drain electrodes
and insulated from the gate electrode.

Abstract.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention:

A thin film transistor comprising: a substrate; a gate electrode
provided on the substrate; a source electrode and a drain
electrode provided on the substrate; a gate insulating layer
provided between the gate electrode and the source electrode
and the drain electrode; and an organic semiconductor layer
contacting the source electrode and the drain electrode and
insulated from the gate electrode, wherein oxidation portions
are provided in portions of the source electrode and the drain
electrode that make contact with the organic semiconductor

1
Appellants assert that dependent claims 3-5 and 12 depend from claims 1
and 11 respectively, and should consequently also be allowed. Appellants
canceled claims 6-10 and the Examiner concurred with that cancellation.
Appeal 2010-003890
Application 11/151,276

3
layer, the oxidation portions being an oxide of a metal
comprising the source electrode and the drain electrode, and
wherein the metal is at least one of Al, Mo, and MoW.

Br. 10.

ISSUES
Claims 1 and 11
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1
and 11 were anticipated by Dimitrakopoulos. Br. 6, 8-9. Specifically, they
contend that the Examiner erred in finding that the language of
Dimitrakopoulos anticipates the language of claim 1, which recites
“wherein oxidation portions are provided in portions of the source electrode
and the drain electrode that make contact with the organic semiconductor
layer, the oxidation portions being an oxide of a metal comprising the
source electrode and the drain electrode.” Br. 7. Furthermore, Appellants
argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Dimitrakopoulos discloses that
the source and drain electrodes are in contact with the organic
semiconductor layer, because Dimitrakopoulos teaches a self-assembled
thiol monolayer applied to the portions of the source and drain electrodes in
contact with the organic semiconductor layer. Br. 8.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 12 together as a group. Br. 8-
9. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative for the
group comprising claims 1, 3-5, 11, and 12.
Appeal 2010-003890
Application 11/151,276

4
Appellants argue that the source and drain electrodes in their claimed
invention comprise a metal, and that the oxidation portions of the electrodes
consist of an oxide of the same metal that constitutes the electrodes. Br. 6.
Appellants contend that Dimitrakopoulos does not disclose this, but rather
teaches merely that the source and drain electrodes may be “composed [of
the same or different] „conductive metal, metal alloy, metal oxide or metal
oxide alloy that contains at least one metal that is highly conductive.‟” Id.
(citing Dimitrakopoulos, col. 5, ll. 29-32). Appellants argue that this
disclosure cannot be fairly relied upon to teach that the source and drain
electrodes comprise a metal, with the oxidation portions of the electrodes
that are an oxide of that metal. Br. 6. Appellants further argue that
although Dimitrakopoulos teaches that the source and drain electrodes may
comprise “a stack of two or more metal layers,” this also fails to teach
electrodes that comprise a metal with an oxidation portion consisting of an
oxide of that metal. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds that Dimitrakopoulos clearly teaches that
electrodes can be composed of the same or different conductive metal,
metal alloy, metal oxide, or metal oxide alloy that contains at least one
metal that is highly conductive or a stack thereof. Ans. 5 (citing
Dimitrakopoulos, col. 5, ll. 29-46). The plain language of Dimitrakopoulos,
therefore, discloses that a given source or drain electrode could be
composed of a metal, a metal alloy, a metal oxide, or a metal oxide alloy, or
a stack thereof, and that the source and drain electrodes can be composed of
the same or different materials or combinations of materials.
Thus, within the world of possible electrode compositions
contemplated by Dimitrakopoulos, is an electrode that consists of a metal
Appeal 2010-003890
Application 11/151,276

5
oxide alloy that in turn consists of a metal and a metal oxide. Such a
composition would necessarily fall into the categories explicitly disclosed
by Dimitrakopoulos. “[A] patent disclosure need not enable information
within the knowledge of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Thus, a patentee
preferably omits from the disclosure any routine technology that is well
known at the time of application.” Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363
F.3d 1247, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, the rule that anticipation
requires that every element of a claim appear in a single reference
accommodates situations where the common knowledge of “technologists”
is not recorded in a reference, i.e., where technical facts are known to those
in the field of the invention. Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948
F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147,
1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the
claimed invention „such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in
combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in
possession of the invention.‟”) (emphasis omitted). Consequently, we
sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of claims 1 and 11 on this ground.
Appellants next argue that language of claims 1, which discloses that
“oxidation portions are provided in portions of the source electrode and the
drain electrode that make contact with the organic semiconductor layer” are
not anticipated by Dimitrakopoulos, which describes a thiol monolayer (18)
applied to the surface of the electrode and interposed between the surface of
the electrode and the organic semiconductor layer. Br. 7. Appellants argue
that this interposed monolayer precludes the organic semiconductor layer
from “mak[ing] contact with the organic semiconductor layer.” Id.
Appeal 2010-003890
Application 11/151,276

6
The Examiner responds that the monolayer is formed on the surface
of the electrode to improve the performance of the transistor; the self-
assembled monolayer changes the surface behavior of the metal of the
electrodes in such a way as to encourage self-assembly of the organic
semiconductor layer in the vicinity of the electrodes. Ans. 5. Consequently,
according to the Examiner, the presence of the monolayer in
Dimitrakopoulos does not preclude electrical contact between the oxidation
portions of the electrodes and the organic semiconductor layer. Id. At 5-6.
Appellants have not explicitly defined the term “contact” in the
Specification. Appellants argue “contact” should be interpreted as “the
junction of two electrical conductors through which a current passes.”
Reply Brief 6. However, Appellants have not presented sufficient
persuasive evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner‟s
finding, which we find to be broad, but reasonable and consistent with
Appellants‟ Specification. The Examiner found that the monolayer acts to
change the surface behavior of the metal used in the electrodes in such a
way as to encourage the self-organization of the organic semiconductor
material into an ordered system near the electrodes and hence does not
preclude electrical contact between the electrodes and the organic
semiconductor layer. Ans. 5-6. Consequently, the language of Appellants‟
claims 1 reciting “portions of the source electrode and the drain electrode
that make contact with the organic semiconductor layer” encompasses
portions of the source and drain electrodes form a junction with the organic
semiconductor layer through which a current passes. The use of “contact”
in the Appellants‟ claims (and in their Appeal and Reply Briefs) is
described by Dimitrakopoulos‟ disclosure that the oxidation portions of the
Appeal 2010-003890
Application 11/151,276

7
electrodes are in electrical contact with, and thus “contact,” the organic
semiconductor layer. This anticipates the Appellants‟ invention.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of Appellants‟ claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner‟s anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 11. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of those claims and dependent claims
3-5 which fall with claim 1 and dependent claim 12 which falls with claim
11.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1 and 11 under §102(b).

DECISION

The Examiner‟s decision rejecting claims 1 and 11 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).
AFFIRMED

ELD