Appeal No. 96-1467
Application No. 08/247,452
a TFT device was conventional as disclosed by Yamazaki ’134
[not applied].
Although we can agree with the examiner that Mimura
broadly suggests the advantages of using a hydrogen-doped
semiconductor layer in a TFT, we cannot agree with the
examiner that the collective teachings of Ohwada and Mimura
suggest the use of a crystalline structure having lattice
distortion with a hydrogen-doped TFT. The hydrogen-doped TFT
of Mimura is specifically described as having an active layer
made of a polycrystalline silicon film, a monocrystalline
silicon film or an amorphous silicon film [column 4, lines 11-
15]. It is noted that none of these films is a semiconductor
layer having a crystalline structure with lattice distortion
as recited in claim 22. Thus, even if the artisan were
motivated to use the Mimura hydrogen-doped TFT in the electro-
optical device of Ohwada, there is no suggestion for the
lattice structure as recited in the claim.
We note that the examiner has simply noted that such
lattice structures were well known as evidenced by Yamazaki
’134. Although Yamazaki was not applied against the claims as
formal prior art, appellants have admitted that such
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007