Ex parte Stupp et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 6, 1998

08179801 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 6, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 11, 1994. 1
According to the appellants, the application is a continuation
of Application No. 08/098,662, filed July 28, 1993, now Patent
No. 5,305,128, which is a continuation of Application No.
07/921,953, filed July 29, 1992, now abandoned, which is a
continuation of Application No. 07/725,368, filed June 27,
1991, now abandoned, which is a continuation of Application
No. 07/456,026, filed December 22, 1989, now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte EDWARD H. STUPP and BABAR A. KHAN
____________
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,8011
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 17
through 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31.
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
2
The disclosed invention relates to an active matrix
electro-optical display device that is characterized by an
array of storage capacitors formed as islands of electrically
conductive material beneath row electrodes of the device.
Each island of electrically conductive material is in
electrical contact with an adjacent pixel electrode, and a
layer of dielectric material is located between each island of
electrically conductive material and the overlying row
electrode.
Claim 17 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
17. An active matrix electro-optic display device
comprising a pair of walls each having an inner and an outer
surface, at least one of which is optically transparent, the
walls defining a space between them, an array of pixel
electrodes, an array of switches associated with the pixel
electrodes, and an array of row and column electrodes, the row
electrodes and column electrodes interconnecting the pixel
electrodes via the switches, the arrays arranged on the inner
surface of one of the walls, a counter electrode on the inner
surface of the other wall, and an electro-optic material
filling the space between the walls, characterized in that the
display
includes an array of storage capacitors, each comprised of an
island of an electrically conductive material underlying a row
electrode, and in electrical contact with an adjacent pixel
electrode, and a layer of a dielectric material between the
island of conductive material and the overlying row electrode.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
3
McKechnie et al. (McKechnie) 4,864,390
Sept. 5, 1989
Stupp et al. (Stupp) 5,305,128 Apr. 19,
1994
Matsueda 63-70832 Mar. 31,
1988
(Japanese patent application)
Claims 17 through 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 stand rejected
under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 8
of Stupp.
Claims 17, 19, 20, 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Matsueda.
Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 30 and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsueda in view of
McKechnie.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we find the examiner’s positions in the answer to be both
reasonable and correct, and none of appellants’ arguments in
the brief have persuaded us of any error in the rejection.
For the sake of brevity, we will not repeat the examiner’s
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
4
positions (Answer, pages 3 through 8). We will instead adopt
the examiner’s reasoning as our own, and merely limit our
decision to a response to appellants’ arguments.
Appellants’ response to the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection is an offer to submit a terminal
disclaimer to overcome the rejection (Brief, pages 7 and 8).
The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 17
through 25, 27, 28, 30 and 31 is sustained because such a
response does not overcome the rejection.
Appellants argue that the polysilicon or amorphous
silicon layer 88 (Figure 6) in Matsueda is a semiconductor,
and does not become “electrically conductive” until a gate
voltage is applied thereto (Brief, pages 9 through 13). The
claims on appeal do not preclude the layer 88 from becoming
“electrically conductive” upon the application of a bias
voltage. The claims on appeal do not require an “electrically
conductive” material that is “able at all times to function as
a capacitor electrode during both on and off conditions,” and
the “electrically conductive” material is not “degeneratively
doped” (Brief, page 9). More importantly, no amount of
capacitance is claimed by appellants (Brief, page 11). Thus,
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
5
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 17, 19, 20, 27 and
28 is sustained.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 21, 22, 24, 25,
30 and 31 is sustained because Matsueda discloses “liquid
crystal (LCD) devices incorporating extra capacitors formed by
islands of conducting material” (Brief, page 12).
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
7
Algy Tamoshunas
U.S. Philips Corp.
Intellectual Property Dept.
580 White Plains Rd.
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Appeal No. 96-1394
Application No. 08/179,801
8
KWH/jrg
JENINE GILLIS

Appeal No. 96-1394
Serial No. 08/179,801
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge FLEMING
Judge KRASS
Received: 08 Sep 98
Typed: 08 Sep 98
DECISION: AFFIRMED

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Brief or Heard
Group Art Unit: 2508
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk (FOIA): ____
Updated Monthly Report: ___