Appeal 2007-0037
Application 10/032,056
THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the admitted prior art (APA) in Appellant's
Figures 2 and 3F and the following prior art reference:
Kakuda 5,162,933 Nov. 10, 1992
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the APA and Kakuda. The Examiner found that the APA teaches the
claimed subject matter except for the limitation of "a metal layer formed on
an entire surface of each of the data lines." The Examiner found that
Kakuda discloses a liquid crystal display (LCD) device having a data
line 11a with a metal layer 11b formed on the entire surface and finds that
"[w]ith such a configuration, the materials of the data line provide a light
blocking function, have good heat resistance, may lower the electrical
resistance, and help simplify the manufacturing process because the data line
can be formed simultaneously with the pixel electrode (col. 6, line 61 -
col. 7, line 29)" (Final Rejection 3). The Examiner concluded that it would
have been obvious "to modify the data line of the APAF by forming a metal
layer on the entire data line as taught by Kakuda to provide a light blocking
data line having good heat resistance, a specified electrical resistance, and []
reduced manufacturing steps" (Final Rejection 3). In response to the
arguments, the Examiner found that column 7, lines 44-67, of "Kakuda
discloses the known practice of forming laminated matrix lines of ITO and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013