Appeal No. 2006-1628
Application No. 09/840,082
elements since incident light would not readily affect a metal's electrical
conductivity [reply brief, page 2].
Appellants also note that the channel region in the admitted prior art is
already covered by the light-shielding layer 11. Thus, Murade does not provide
any suggestion or motivation to extend the light-shielding member of the
admitted prior art with a margin sufficient to block light incident on the metal thin
film of the TFT's drain electrode as claimed [brief, page 9].
Regarding independent claims 5, 9, 15, and 19, appellants argue that
there is no metal film in Murade. Rather, Murade teaches shielding a non-
metallic capacitance line 16 to prevent adverse effects due to incident light [brief,
page 10; emphasis in original]. Appellants also argue that Murade fails to
provide any motivation or suggestion to extend the light-shielding layer to cover
the storage capacitor's metallic upper electrode since Murade, at best, only
teaches shielding a structure formed of doped polysilicon material [brief, page
11]. According to appellants, Murade does not therefore provide a proper
motivation to extend the light-shielding member into the pixel area with a margin
sufficient to block light incident on the metal upper electrode of the storage
capacitor as claimed [brief, pages 11 and 12; emphasis in original].
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15-17,
and 19. At the outset, we agree with appellants that the examiner's rationale to
extend the light-shielding member in the admitted prior art device is problematic
essentially for the reasons noted by appellants. However, the teachings of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007