Ex Parte Luo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

10065091 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte FANG-CHEN LUO
and WEI-CHIH CHANG
_____________

Appeal 2010-002443
Application 10/065,091
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JASON V.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002443
Application 10/065,091

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 56 through 59 and 62 through 67. Claims 1 through 23, 34
through 43, 60, and 61 were cancelled, and claims 24 through 33 and 44
through 55 were withdrawn.
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a reflection type liquid crystal display.
See page 3 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 67 is reproduced below:
67. A liquid crystal display (LCD) structure, comprising a
first substrate panel, a second substrate panel, and a liquid
crystal layer disposed between the first substrate panel and the
second substrate panel, a plurality of pixel portions being
formed by respective electrodes for applying a voltage to the
liquid crystal layer, each of the pixel portions comprising:
an organic insulating layer over the first substrate panel,
wherein the organic insulating layer comprises a bumpy
surface;
a conformal reflective layer over the bumpy surface of
the organic insulating layer;
a planar color filter layer over the conformal reflective
layer, wherein the planar color filter layer has a substantially
planar upper surface and a bottom surface that conformably
covers the conformal reflective layer;
a contact via configured in the planar color filter layer,
the conformal reflective layer and the organic insulating film;
a first transparent conductive layer over the planar color
filter layer, wherein the first transparent conductive layer is
connected to a thin film transistor through the contact via in the
planar color filter layer, the conformal reflective layer and the
organic insulating film, and a first terminal of the thin film
Appeal 2010-002443
Application 10/065,091

3

transistor is configured in the planar color filter layer while a
second terminal of the thin film transistor is configured in the
organic insulating layer.

REFERENCES
Ogawa US 6,122,027 Sep. 19, 2000
Nakai US 6,144,429 Nov. 7, 2000
Tanada US 2002/0054257 A1 May 9, 2002

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 56 through 59 and 62 through 67
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanada in view of Nakai.
The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 3 through 7 of the Answer.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 56 through 59 and 62 through 67
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanada in view of Ogawa and
Nakai. The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 8 through 12 of the Answer

ISSUES
Rejection based upon Tanada in view of Nakai
Appellants’ contentions, on pages 6 through 10 of the Brief2 with
respect to this rejection present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in
construing the claim term color filter layer as recited in claim 56 and 67 to
be broad enough to include a composite (multi-layer) layer?

1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated
September 21, 2009.
2 Throughout this decision we refer to arguments made in the Brief filed on
July 2, 2009 and the Reply Brief filed November 20, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002443
Application 10/065,091

4

Rejection based upon Tanada in view of Ogawa and Nakai
Appellants’ contentions on pages 12 through 14 of the Brief present
us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Tanada, Ogawa, and Nakai teaches a planar color filter layer which has a
planar upper surface that conformably and fully covers the conformal
reflective as recited in claims 56 and 67?
Further, with respect to claim 67, Appellants’ arguments on pages 14
and 15 of the Brief present us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding
that the combination of Tanada, Ogawa, and Nakai teaches a TFT (thin film
transistor) with a terminal in the color filter layer and a second terminal in
the organic insulating layer as recited in claim 67?

ANALYSIS
Rejection based upon Tanada in view of Nakai
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the arguments.
We agree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
construing the claim term color filter layer as recited in independent claims
56 and 67 to be broad enough to include a composite (multi-layer) layer.
The Examiner finds that planar color filters are most often composite layers
of multiple primary colors and as such finds that Tanada’s layers 13 and 14
(Figure 1) meet the claimed color filter layer. Answer 13. While it may be
true that a color filter composes typically comprises several layers, the claim
recites a color filter layer (singular), the Examiner has not presented any
evidence to show that shown that a the term “a color filter layer” means
Appeal 2010-002443
Application 10/065,091

5

more than one layer. Appellants have cited to several references to support
their assertion that a layer means one layer. Reply Brief 3-5. We do not
consider the Examiner to have demonstrated it is reasonable to construe the
claimed “a color filter layer” to include a composite layer as taught by
Tanana’s Figure 1, layers 13 and 14. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 56 through 59 and 62 through 67 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tanada in view of Nakai.

Rejection based upon Tanada in view of Ogawa and Nakai
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the arguments.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Tanada, Ogawa, and Nakai teaches a planar
color filter layer which has a planar upper surface that conformably and fully
covers the conformal reflective layer as recited in claims 56 and 67.
However, we concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Tanada, Ogawa, and Nakai teaches a TFT
with a terminal in the color filter layer and a second terminal in the organic
insulating layer as recited in claim 67.
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. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner.
Appeal 2010-002443
Application 10/065,091

6

With respect to the first issue, in addition to the Examiner’s findings
and responses, we note Appellants’ arguments focus on Tanada requiring an
overcoat to make the upper layer planar and Ogawa teaches that both the
upper and lower layer are planar, and thus the references are not combinable.
Brief 13-14. Appellants’ argument that Tanada requires the overcoat 14 to
make the layer planar is similarly not persuasive. Thus, as is seen in figure
1, the statement in paragraph 35, that the overcoat is to planarize the color
filter and the conformal reflective film 12, is discussing filling in the gaps of
reflective surface, between color filter elements 13 and adjusting for
differences in heights of the individual color filter elements item 13.
Further, as is seen in Tanada figure 1, the upper surface of the color filter
layer 13 is planar. As such, we disagree with the premise of Appellants’
arguments that the Tanada color filter has a non-planar upper surface and as
such the references are not combinable. Further, Ogawa shows in figure 8,
that the color filter 103 covers substantially all of the reflective surface, item
102 (i.e. there are no gaps of the reflective surface that are not covered). As
such, we consider Ogawa’s teaching of the planar color filter which covers
substantially all of the reflective surface to make the overcoat (item 14 of
Tanada) unnecessary. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that the skilled artisan would not combine Ogawa and Tanada because the
color art teaches the color filter over a conformal (non-planar) layer is also
conformal. Nor are we are convinced by Appellants’ arguments that the
combination of the references does not teach the claimed color filter layer.
As this is the only issue raised by Appellants with respect to the rejection of
claims 56 through 59 and 62 through 66, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims.
Appeal 2010-002443
Application 10/065,091

7

With respect to claim 67, Appellants’ arguments present the additional
issue of whether the combined teachings of Tanada, Ogawa, and Nakai teach
a TFT with a terminal in the color filter layer and a second terminal in the
organic insulating layer as recited in claim 67. We concur with the
Appellants’ conclusion that they do not. The Examiner relies upon Nakai’s
teaching of a contact hole, item 22 in figure 13, as teaching a TFT contact
through all intervening layers. Answer 10-11. While Nakai’s figure 13 does
show a contact hole 22, the Examiner has not shown, nor do we find that
Nakai teaches one terminal in the color filter lawyer and a second in the
organic insulating layer as recited in claim 67. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 67.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 56 through 59 and 62
through 66 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claim 67 is reversed.

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-IN-PART

msc