Appeal 2007-0037
Application 10/032,056
over the ITO layer (see Specification, ¶ 0019 and ¶ 0045). The Examiner
points to the relevant teaching of Kakuda in response to Appellant's
arguments at Final Rejection 4. The combination of the APA and Kakuda
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues that Kakuda is completely silent with regard to
teaching that covering the ITO layer 11a with a metal layer 11b results in
providing "a light blocking data line having good heat resistance, a specified
electrical resistance, and [] reduced manufacturing steps" as stated by the
Examiner (Br. 4). It is argued that column 6, line 61, through column 7,
line 29, cited by the Examiner, is unrelated to covering the ITO layer 11a
with a metal layer 11b (Br. 4-5; Br. 7-8). It is argued that Kakuda fails to
teach or suggest "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" as stated by the Examiner (Br. 4).
Appellant argues that Kakuda's invention relates to the benefits of the light
blocking layer and storage capacitance electrode and the Examiner's alleged
motivation, i.e., "the materials of the data line provide a light blocking
function, have good heat resistance, may lower the electrical resistance," is
not directed toward any structure associated with the data line 11 (Br. 5-6).
Appellant's Brief and Reply Brief largely deal with the failure of the
Examiner's reasoning to establish proper motivation.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013