11454505 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 17, 2013

11454505 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/454,505 06/16/2006 Yong-In Park 12576-7049 7779 757 7590 05/20/2013 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE P.O. BOX 10395 CHICAGO, IL 60610 EXAMINER ARENDT, PAISLEY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2871 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YONG-IN PARK, DAI-YUN LEE, YOUNG-JOO KIM, and SU-HYUK KANG ____________ Appeal 2010-012409 Application 11/454,505 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-012409 Application 11/454,505 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 11-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to “an LCD [liquid crystal display] device and a method of fabricating the same” (Spec. ¶ [0018]). Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 11. An array substrate for a liquid crystal display device that comprises: a p-type driving TFT, an n-type driving TFT and a switching TFT on a substrate that includes a display area and a non-display area, wherein the p-type and the n-type driving TFTs are in the non-display area region and the switching TFT is in the display region; a gate insulating layer on the p-type and the n-type driving TFTs and the switching TFT; first, second and third gate electrodes and a gate line connected to the third gate electrode on the gate insulating layer, wherein the first, second and third gate electrodes correspond to central portions of the first, second and third semiconductor layers; an interlayer insulating layer on the substrate that includes the first, second and third gate electrodes, wherein the interlayer insulating layer has first, second and third contact holes that expose ohmic contact regions of the p-type and the n- type driving TFTs and the switching TFT; Appeal 2010-012409 Application 11/454,505 3 first, second and third source electrodes and first, second and third drain electrodes and a data line on the interlayer insulating layer, wherein the data line is connected to the third source electrode and crosses the gate line to define a pixel region, wherein each of the first, second and third source electrodes and the first, second and third drain electrodes contacts each of the ohmic contact regions of the first, second and third semiconductor layers via each of the first to third contact holes; a passivation layer on the substrate that includes the first, second and third source electrodes and the first, second and third drain electrodes and the data line, wherein the passivation layer has a drain contact hole that exposes a portion of the third drain electrode; a pixel electrode on the passivation layer, wherein the pixel electrode connects to the third drain electrode via the drain contact hole; and a black matrix on the substrate that includes the pixel electrode, wherein the black matrix is in the non-display region and a non-pixel region of the display area and wherein the black matrix is formed on upper surfaces of the passivation layer and the pixel electrode and wherein the black matrix directly contacts the passivation layer and the pixel electrode. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yamazaki Kim US 6,175,395 B1 US 2004/0109098 A1 Jan. 16, 2001 June 10, 2004 Appeal 2010-012409 Application 11/454,505 4 REJECTIONS Claims 11 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yamazaki. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamazaki and Kim. ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection Appellants contend that Yamazaki does not describe the claim 11 limitation a black matrix on the substrate that includes the pixel electrode, wherein the black matrix is in the non-display region and a non- pixel region of the display area and wherein the black matrix is formed on upper surfaces of the passivation layer and the pixel electrode and wherein the black matrix directly contacts the passivation layer and the pixel electrode (Br. 4). Specifically, Appellants argue (Br. 5) that Yamazaki’s description of Figure 6D contradicts the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 5, 8-9) that Figure 6D shows the disputed feature. We disagree with Appellants. Yamazaki’s Figure 6D clearly shows a substrate of an LCD device where a black matrix 538 directly contacts an upper surface of a pixel electrode 536 (see Yamazaki Fig. 6D; col. 14, l. 16-col. 15, l. 9). As Appellants point out (Br. 5), Yamazaki does describe that “a black matrix 538 made of a resin material was formed in regions except the pixel electrodes, that is, formed on the TFTs of the driver circuit and on wiring line regions including the pixel TFTs. (FIG. 6D)” and that a technique is used “to form a black matrix 538 on all the wiring lines and the TFTs except Appeal 2010-012409 Application 11/454,505 5 only the pixel electrodes” (Yamazaki, col. 14, l. 66-col. 15, l. 9) (emphases added). However, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of this description (Ans. 8) and find that Yamazaki does not completely exclude the black matrix from being formed on any part of the pixel electrode. Rather, when Yamazaki’s Figure 6D and the associated written description are read together, Yamazaki describes generally not forming the black matrix on the pixel electrode, but permitting some small amount of overlap of the black matrix onto an upper surface of the of the pixel electrode as shown in Figure 6D. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 11, and claims 13-15 not separately argued. The Obviousness Rejection Appellants present no additional specific arguments regarding the limitations of claim 12, but rather argue that Kim fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Yamazaki with respect to the black matrix feature recited in claim 11 (see Br. 7-8). However, as discussed above, Yamazaki describes this feature. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and did not err in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2010-012409 Application 11/454,505 6 DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 11-15. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tkl