Appeal No. 96-1467
Application No. 08/247,452
With respect to representative, independent claim 22,
the examiner essentially asserts that Ohwada teaches all the
recited features of claim 22 except for the hydrogen-doped
semiconductor layer of the transistors. The examiner cites
Mimura as teaching a hydrogen-doped semiconductor layer of a
TFT. The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to the artisan to use the hydrogen-doped TFT of Mimura for the
TFT of Ohwada [answer, pages 3-4]. The examiner also observes
that the lattice points in a semiconductor material having a
crystal-like structure being distorted or strained is
conventional in the art as disclosed by Yamazaki (4,409,134)
[not applied in the statement of the rejection].
Appellants argue that Ohwada does not disclose a semi-
amorphous semiconductor (SAS) wherein the semiconductor layer
has a crystalline structure with lattice distortion.
Appellants also argue that Mimura also never discloses a TFT
employing SAS. Appellants’ position is basically that even
though SAS transistors were known in the art, there is no
suggestion to employ SAS TFTs in an electro-optical device
such as taught by Ohwada [brief, pages 7-8]. The examiner
responds that crystalline structure with lattice distortion in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007