Ex Parte Yamazaki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

13022879 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/022,879 02/08/2011
26171 7590 06/27/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (DC)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shunpei Yamazaki
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12732-0805001 I US13198 7586
EXAMINER
KHOO, STACY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI and JUN KOY AMA
Appeal2015-000934
Application 13/022,879
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-13. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions,
and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner
1 The Examiner entered the claim amendments made after the final rejection,
which incorporated the limitations of claims 14 and 15 into their respective
independent claims 1 and 9. See Adv. Act. 1; App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000934
Application 13/022,879
errs in finding the combination of Tsuda (JP20002-182619; published June
26, 2002) and Uchiyama (US 2010/0140614 Al; published June 10, 2010)
teaches or suggests an off-state current of the transistor comprising the In-
Ga-Zn-0-based oxide semiconductor layer is smaller than an off-state
current of a transistor comprising an amorphous silicon ("off-state current"
limitation), as recited in independent claims 1 and 9.
The Examiner finds Uchiyama teaches an In-Ga-Zn-0-based oxide
semiconductor layer. Ans. 2-3 (citing Uchiyama Abstract). The Examiner
cites to Appellants' Specification to support the finding that it is obvious for
all oxide semiconductor layers to have the property of an off-state current to
be smaller than an off-state current of a transistor comprising amorphous
silicon. Final Act. 9 (citing Spec. i-f 22); see also Ans. 2-5.
Appellants point out the cited section of the specification is not
identified as prior art, but is under the Best Mode section of the disclosed
invention and is clearly applicant's own work. App. Br. 3--4. Appellants
argue paragraph 22 does not support the Examiner's conclusion that all
oxide semiconductors have the disputed property because it is made in the
context of "highly purified oxide semiconductors having very few carriers
which are derived from hydrogen, oxygen deficiency, and the like (close to
zero)." App. Br. 5 (citing Spec. i-f 22); see also Reply Br. 2-3.
We agree with Appellants that the cited sections of the Specification
fall within the detailed description of Appellants' invention and do not
describe that all oxide semiconductors have the property of a small off-state
current, but rather describe the properties of a highly purified oxide
semiconductor. See Spec. i-fi-1 21-23. We further agree with Appellants'
argument (Reply Br. 2) that the Examiner fails to show Uchiyama's In-Ga-
2
Appeal2015-000934
Application 13/022,879
Zn-0-based oxide semiconductor is highly purified or otherwise has an off-
state current smaller than an off-state current of a transistor comprising an
amorphous silicon. The Examiner does not use Tsuda to teach the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 8-9, 10-11. Therefore, Appellants persuade us
that the Examiner has not established the combination of Tsuda and
Uchiyama teaches or suggests the "off state current" limitation recited in
claims 1 and 9. The Examiner does not use the additional references of
record to teach or suggest the "off state current" limitation. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1 and 9, and their
dependent claims 2-8 and 10-13.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-13.
REVERSED
3