Appeal Number: 2006-1372
Application Number: 09/197,767
reflective would defeat the purpose of Liu’s device. The Federal Circuit has held that "a
proposed modification [is] inappropriate for an obviousness inquiry when the
modification render[s] the prior art reference inoperable for its intended purpose. In re
Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)." In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1265-1266 n.12, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 n.12 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Therefore, we
cannot accept the examiner's proposed modification of Liu. Consequently, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5, 16, 22 through 27, 40, 46, 47, 51, 55, 59,
63, 67, 68, 71, and 72 over Liu in view of Fukunaga and Izumi.
The examiner (Answer, page 5) rejects claims 2, 22 through 27, 40, 48, 52, 56,
60, and 64 over Liu in view of Yamazaki, Fukunaga, and Izumi. Again the examiner
proposes changing Liu’s transparent pixel electrode to a reflective pixel electrode. As
explained supra, such a modification would render Liu inoperable for its intended
purpose. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 22
through 27, 40, 48, 52, 56, 60, and 64 over Liu in view of Yamazaki, Fukunaga, and
Izumi.
Next the examiner (Answer, page 6) rejects claims 3, 22 through 27, 40, 49, 53,
57, 61, 65, 69, 70, 73, and 74 over Sato in view of Okita, Fukunaga, and Miyawaki. The
examiner rejects (Answer, page 8) claims 4 and 50 over Sato in view of Okita, Miyawaki,
and Yamazaki, and (Answer, page 9) claims 54, 58, 62, and 66 over Sato in view of
Okita, Miyawaki, Yamazaki, and Fukunaga. The examiner (Answer, page 7) recognizes
that Sato and Okita fail to teach the claimed materials for filling Sato’s contact hole 171
through insulating layer 170. The examiner, therefore, turns to Fukunaga asserting
(Answer, page 7) that Fukunaga discloses an embedded conductive layer of indium tin
oxide or organic conductive layer of carbon or polymer to “provide a color liquid crystal
display devices [sic] having high speed response, low power consumption, and low
prices, as taught by Fukunaga et al (column 3, lines 30-34).”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 13) that Sato fails to teach or suggest that the
embedded conductive layer and the reflective pixel electrode are formed as distinct
features, as recited in the claims. Instead, according to appellants, Sato discloses that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007