Ex Parte Lim et al - Page 9


                   Appeal No. 2006-1628                                                                                           
                   Application No. 09/840,082                                                                                     


                   shown in Fig. 2.  If a feature is inherent in the prior art, it is irrelevant that the                         
                   prior art did not recognize such a feature or even if the feature was unknown.                                 
                   Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1321, 69 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (Fed.                                       
                   Cir. 2004) ("[T]he fact that a characteristic is a necessary feature or result of a                            
                   prior-art embodiment…is enough for inherent anticipation, even if that fact was                                
                   unknown at the time of the prior invention.").  See also Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco,                            
                   Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1348-49, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting                                    
                   that it is irrelevant that the prior art does not recognize a key aspect of an                                 
                   invention if such an aspect is nevertheless inherent in the prior art).                                        
                          Regarding the charging device, we agree with the examiner that the data                                 
                   line 3, scan line 2, and associated insulation together reasonably constitutes a                               
                   storage capacitor as claimed [see answer, pages 5 and 6].  In addition, the                                    
                   capacitor's upper electrode (i.e., data line 3) is an aluminum film [Murade, col. 7,                           
                   lines 28 and 29].  We see no reason why the light-shielding member 6 would not                                 
                   block incident light from impinging on the capacitor's upper electrode as                                      
                   claimed.1  In particular, Fig. 2 of Murade shows (1) the light-shielding member 6                              
                   directly overlapping the upper electrode 3, and (2) the light-shielding member 6                               
                   extending well beyond the upper electrode in the vicinity of the capacitor.                                    
                   Although Murade may not have discussed or even recognized the advantages of                                    
                   blocking incident light on the capacitor's upper electrode, such a recognition is                              
                                                                                                                                  
                   1 Although insulative layer 15 is disposed between the light-shielding member 6 and the                        
                   capacitor's upper electrode 3, the insulative layer 15 is a silicon oxide film (BPSG) which is a               
                   transparent material [see Murade, col. 12, lines 39-41].  Because such a transparent material                  
                   would not block incident light, the presence of this intervening transparent layer does not affect             
                   the ability of light-shielding member 6 to block incident light on the capacitor's upper electrode.            

                                                                9                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007