Appeal No. 2001-2388
Application 09/151,948
the metal pixels an unplanarized passivation layer.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.2
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-21 over the
appellant’s admitted prior art in view of Huang, and claims 5, 16
and 22-27 over the appellant’s admitted prior art in view of
Huang and Jeong, are reversed.
REVERSED
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
2 The examiner does not rely upon Jeong for any teaching
which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the appellant’s
admitted prior art and Huang.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007