Appeal 2007-0037
Application 10/032,056
regard to the entire disclosure of Kakuda et al." (Br. 9). It is argued that
Kakuda discloses the different failures associated with using aluminum, and
thus actually discloses disadvantages of using the known practice of forming
laminated conductive lines in LCD devices, and does not rebut Appellant's
argument that Kakuda does not provide motivation to modify the APA
(Br. 9) and teaches away from using laminated structures (Reply Br. 4).
Kakuda expressly teaches the desirability of providing an aluminum
layer over the entire surface of the data lines to reduce the resistance and, so,
teaches doing exactly what Appellant has done. The fact that Kakuda
discloses that there may be corrosion problems with an aluminum layer does
not teach that aluminum will not work. A reference "teaches away" when it
states that something cannot be done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553,
31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131-32 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, Kakuda only discloses
that there are problems, not that it will not work. Appellant discloses using
an aluminum layer without disclosing any problems (see Specification
¶ 0044). The fact that Kakuda recognizes the problem does not remove it as
a reference for all that it teaches one of ordinary skill in the art.
It is argued that "Kakuda et al. is completely silent with regard to
providing any motivation, either implicitly or explicitly, with which to
modify the data line structure shown in Appellant's Related Art FIGs. 1-3 in
order to arrive at Appellant's claimed invention" (Br. 6-7).
We disagree for the reasons stated above. Kakuda expressly discloses
motivation for the proposed modification.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013