Attorney Docket No. 0756-7672
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`3991
`
`Examiner: Stephen J. Stein
`
`.
`b ____CER_T|F_L%_ATEhQF MAILINGd
`|_ h
`ere y certify t at t
`IS correspon ence Is
`being deposited with the United States Postal
`Service with sufficient postage as .First Class
`Mail
`in
`an
`envelope
`addressed
`to:
`Commissioner for Patents, PO. Box 1450,
`Alexandria,
`VA
`22313-1450,
`on
`'
`-O
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`5‘.
`
`In re Patent Application of:
`
`Yoshiharu H'IRAKATA et al.
`
`Reexamination No, 90/007,985
`Filed: March 24, 2006
`For: CONTACT STRUCTURE
`_
`_
`(Ex Parte reexamination of US.
`
`,
`
`Patent No. 6,404,480 to Hirakata)
`
`PATENT OWNER’S STATEMENT OF THE INTERVIEW (37 CFR § 1.560)
`
`AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
`
`
`
`Mail Stop Ex Pan‘e Reexam
`\ (VMTTN: Central ReeXamination Unit
`Honorable Commissioner of Patents
`
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`..
`The Applicant appreciates Examiner Stein's, and Examiner Jones’
`time _in
`'éconducting a personal interview on September 19, 2007. As described in more detail
`'below, during the interview the Applicant's representatives explained that the present
`claims are not anticipated or rendered obvious by US. Patent. No. 5,757,456 to
`
`Yamazaki, US. Patent No. 5,625,474 to Aomori, JP 6-289415 to Kiyofumi or JP 5-
`
`243333 to- Moriyama, either alone or in combination with each other or with any of the
`
`secondary references of record (including without limitation JP 6-30851'0 to Tsuda and
`
`~ US. Patent No. 5,486,941 to Saiuchi) (JP 5-241183 to Furushima and US. Patent No.
`
`6,124,917 to Fujioka are described in the Response filed September 10, 2007). The
`
`Examiner agreed to consider the Applicant’s remarks following the submission of this
`Patent Owner’s Statement of the Interview and Supplemental Response.
`In the following, the Applicant summarizes each of the pointsdiscussed during
`
`the interview by the Applicant’s representatives. Also,
`
`the Applicant has included
`
`

`

`clarifications and reproductions of pertinent Figures that were discussed during the
`
`interview.
`1
`During the interview, regarding the rejection based .on Kiyofumi ‘415, Mr. Stein
`
`provided a revised version of pages 7 and 8 of the Official Action mailed July 10, 2007,
`
`which includes in boldface at the top of page 8 the text that was missing from the
`
`bottom of page 7 of the ”Official Action mailed July 10, 2007. Until the interview, the
`
`Applicant did not have a complete copy of the Official Action and was unable to respond
`
`to this rejection in' detail. During the interview, the Applicant discussed'the rejection
`
`based on Kiyofumi ‘41'5; however, the Applicant has not, until now, provided a written
`
`response to the rejections based on Kiyofumi ‘415. By the present submission, the
`Applicant respectfully submits herewith arguments traversing the rejections based on ,
`
`Kiyofumi ‘415.
`
`As necessary, please incorporate the corresponding arguments presented in the
`
`Response filed September 10, 2007.
`
`Rejections based on Yamazaki ‘456
`
`Yamazaki ‘456, Figures ZB and 2C
`
`
`
`25
`
`Yamazaki ‘456 cannot be used for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) becaUse
`
`it is directed to an entirely different field of endeavor than the present application (see
`
`the Applicant’s full comments at page 6 of the Response filed September 10, 2007).
`
`Generally, Yamazaki ‘456 is directed to aimethod for fabricating and mounting a driver
`circuit onto a display device, and in particular, a method for fabricating a driver circuit on
`
`a surrogate substrate, temporarily adhering the driver circuit and surrogate substrate to
`
`

`

`a display device, and then removing the surrogate substrate from the display device, but
`
`- leaving behind the driver'circuit mounted to the display device.
`\
`Figures 28 and 2C of Yamazaki ‘456, which are reproduced 'above, illustrate that
`
`the reference relates to the fabrication andmounting of driver circuits. Specifically, a
`
`number of semiconductor integrated circuits 22 (referenced in Figure 2A) are formed on
`
`substrate 21, which is cut to form stick crystals, such as stick crystal 24 shown in
`Figures 28 and ZC. Next, stick crystal 24, along with its semiconductor integrated
`circuits 22,
`is bonded to surface 26 of substrate 25..
`In this process, semiconductor
`
`integrated circuits 22 are permanently bonded to surface 26 of substrate 25, but
`
`substrate 21 on which semiconductor integrated circuits. 22 were formed is only
`
`temporarily bonded to surface 26 of substrate 25. Then, substrate 21 is peeled from
`
`substrate 25,
`
`leaving semiconductor integrated circuits 22 on surface 26 of substrate
`
`25. Figures 2E and 2F illustrate that semiconductor integrated circuit 29 (formerly 22)
`
`is left bonded to surface 26 of substrate 25.
`
`(See also column 5, lines 20-40).
`
`Whereas Yamazaki ‘456 is related to driver circuits,
`the present invention is
`directed to a contact portion of an active matrix display device as shown, for example, in ,
`
`Figure 6 of the (present specification, reproduced below.
`
`FIG.6 '
`'
`25°
`
`252 .401 25‘
`
`322
`K 402
`
`
`
`’IIIIl”_IIIIIIIIIIIIII_'III.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII‘_TIIIIII.IIII
`
`
`
`
`\.\-\\m
`I \\\\\‘\‘\"\\_\\\\\\“.\\\\\“u“
`\\\.\\‘
`
`_\‘..5 \“‘:-
`
`
`_'
`
`'{‘[__—1'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFI‘I
` 318
`'9 In
`n— ‘—
`
`COMMON CONTACT
`
`PIXEL REGION
`.
`I
`PORTION
`
`323
`
`319
`
`Therefore, the Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) based on Yamazaki ‘456 be withdrawn.
`
`Applicant also respectfully requests that the rejections under_35 U.S.C. § 102 be
`withdrawn for at least the folloWing reasons.
`
`'Yamazaki
`‘456 does not disclose, either explicitly or
`inherently, a second
`substrate (recited in claims 1, 11, 16 and 26). The substrate 31 of Yamazaki ‘456 is a
`
`

`

`surrogate substrate that is used to fabricate the driver circuit, but that is subsequently
`peeled away from the semiconductor circuit that becomes incorporated into the display. .
`
`The substrate is peeled away in order to reduce the overall thickness of the resulting
`
`device. Figure 4A of Yamazaki ‘456 (reproduced below) shows the substrate 31 before
`
`separation.
`
` _
`
`waumumummmmmnmmuumummmmmumumrmmrmmmmmmnmm
`3 7
`T___.________-=___________T
`
`Figure 4A
`
`Figure 4A of Yamazaki ‘456 shows an incomplete device. The structure shown
`in Figure 4A is not an active matrix display device (which is recited in each of the claims
`
`of the present ‘480 patent). Figure SC of Yamazaki “456 (reproduced below) shows the
`beginning of the removal
`(peeling away) of substrate 31.
`Figure 50 shows an
`incomplete device, and the structure shown in Figure SC is not an active matrix device.
`
`Figure SD of Yamazaki ‘456 (reproduced below) shows the stick driver portion of the
`
`display after substrate 31 has been removed.
`degrees with respect to Figure 50.)
`'
`
`(NOTE:
`
`Figure 5D is flipped 180
`I
`
`Alf—WT
`
`“MW
`&\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'-\\\\\
`flflw wan.“—
`““
`‘m‘nw
`WW-W W-W
`
`uurmmummmnnuuuuuummnnuuum
`
`Figure 5C
`
`

`

`.Wfl—WWA WI/M-W_
`\\uIlll.”\‘J‘kfiIIIA {&-“&\\\
`
`\\\\\\\\m\\\\\\\\\% . Figure 5D
`
`Therefore, the surrogate substrate 31 cannot correspond to either the first [or
`second substrate of the present claims.
`I
`
`During the interview, the Examiner argued that one may need to give patentable
`
`weight to the preamble (which .recites “an active matrix display device”) in order to
`
`support the position that the intermediate step and the surrogate substrate 31 shown in
`Figure SC is not part of the final device. Since the preamble makes clear that the
`structure recited in the body of the claim is not for all devices, but for active matrix
`display devices in particular, the term “active matrix display device" is necessary to give
`
`life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Therefore,
`
`the claim preamble should be
`
`construed asif in the balance of the claim (MPEP § 2111.02).
`
`1
`
`I
`
`In addition, Yamazaki ‘456 does' not disclose, either explicitly or inherently, at
`two openings (recited in claims 1 and 11; Le. Figure 2A, a “storm grate";
`
`least
`
`reproduced below).
`
`FIG.2_A
`
`110
`
`
`
`

`

`The Official Action relies on silicon nitride film ‘46 to allegedly teach the second
`
`interlayer insulating film of the present claims, and on ITO (indium-tin oxide) electrode
`47 to allegedly teach the second conductive film of the present claims (page 4, Paper
`No. 20070703). However, Figure 4C _of Yamazaki ‘456 only appears to disclose a
`
`single opening in the film 46 with a conductive film (electrode 47) in the single opening.
`
`Figure 4c
`
`
`
`_\\\\V~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘.~\‘\‘\\\\\\\k...\}‘\\\\
`ith“V' m_‘\_
`JW—WM W-Wm_
`
`
`
`_m
`
`mmmrrmmnmmmmmnmaumnmmmmmmmmmmmmmummmm
`
`
`
`A common contact in an active matrix display device is a contact between two
`
`LCD substrates. There is no disclosure in Yamazaki ‘456 of more than one opening for
`each transistor, Such as that shown 'in Figure 4C. Therefore, Yamazaki ‘456'does not
`
`appear to teach, either explicitly or inherently, at least two openings, as presently
`
`claimed. During the interview, the Examiner agreed with the Applicant’s position in this
`
`matter.
`
`-Also, Yamazaki ‘456 does not disclose, either explicitly or inherently, a second
`interlayer insulating film having an opening with'a part of the Second interlayer insulating
`film remaining in the opening (recited in claims 16 and 26 only;
`i.e. Figure 28, a “hair
`brush"; reproduced below).
`I
`
`

`

`"/
`
`/9/‘/-/
`’/.¢/’9%///////.¢
`443%45;;/
`/{4,'!//x!”
`
`120
`
`103(111)
`
`104a
`
`Still further, claims 16 and 26 recite that a conductive spacer is held over the part
`
`of the second interlayer insulating film remaining in the opening (§e_e, for example,
`
`Figure 6, reproduced above).
`
`‘
`
`Referring still to Figure 4C, the Official Action previously asserted that a side of
`
`the layer 46 remains in the opening.
`
`Specifically,
`
`the Official Action previously
`
`asserted that the contact hole necessarily has a part of the layer 46 in the opening,
`“since the insulating film makes up the walls of the contact hole” (page 4, Paper No.
`
`20070703). However, since the opening for the electrode 47 is formed in the layer 46,
`
`it is not reasonable to assert that the side of layer 46 remains in the opening. While it
`might be reasonable to argue that a part of electrode 47 remains in the opening formed
`
`in layer 46,
`
`it is not rea'SOnable to argue that a portion of the layer 46 remains in the
`
`opening formed in layer 46. Also, claims 16 and 26 require that the conductive spacer
`
`be held over the part of the second interlayer insulating film remaining in the opening.
`
`As seen in Figure 4C, the spacer (allegedly gold bump 48) of Yamazaki ‘456 is not held
`over a part of layer 46 that remains in the opening for electrode 47. Therefore,
`
`teach, either explicitly or inherently, a second'interlayer
`‘456 does not
`Yamazaki
`insulating film having an opening with a part of the second interlayer insulating film
`remaining 'in the opening or a conductive spacer held over the part of the second
`
`interlayer insulating film remaining in the opening. During the interview, the Examiner
`
`agreed with the-Applicant’s position in this matter.
`
`

`

`Additionally, Yamazaki ‘456 does not disclose, either explicitly or inherently, that
`
`each of at least two openings (or the opening in claim 26) occupies an area larger than
`
`an area occupied by each of a plurality of conductive spacers (recited in claims 11 and
`
`26 only).
`
`For the reasons noted above, Yamazaki ‘456 does not disclose, either explicitly
`or inherently, at least tWo openings (recited in claim 11).
`In addition, regarding both
`claims 11 and 26, the Official Action previously asserted that “[t]he ‘456 patent finally
`discloses that each of the openings in the silicon nitride interlayer insulating film occupy
`an area larger than an area occupied [by] each conductive particle (See Figures 1D, 4C
`
`and 1A)” (page 5, Paper No. 20070703). Figure 4C is reproduced above, and Figures
`
`1A through 1D are reproduced below.
`
`
`
`‘ Figure 1A .
`Figure 1A discloses a substrate 1, a resin 3, a conducting line pattern 4, an
`electrode 5, a gold bump 6 (the reference line appears to'be incorrect in Figure 1A, but
`
`appears. to be correct
`
`in Figures 18 and 1C), a driver circuit portion 7 having an
`
`integrated cirCuit 2, and a matrix portion 8.
`
`Figure 1B (reproduced below)
`
`is an
`
`enlarged view of aportion of Figure 1A, and Figure 1C (reproduced below) is an
`
`enlarged view of a portion. of Figure 1B.
`
`“
`
`

`

`iC-\
`
`’ ...................... ‘
`
`5““\\“\\\\\\\\\\\\\“\\“\“\‘ ‘v-_——__--
`
`--_-
`
`2
`rq—‘N—x
`12
`73
`‘
`
`'
`
`
`munnnmr-uummme-uuumuun
`PM: ""er ‘-~_ 1
`kafiCfi‘“\\\\\\\\\\\\\\V 55
`
`
`
`
`
`:21}1:23:337»???755:3:3313:3:::1:113:3;113if???'3‘.W“
`6
`
`
`''''' xxx/anzr.»rrIr/.',v,.;(/.~z.».-'
`I
`4
`
`
`1
`.
`
`
`
`
`
` [@1Wm
`
`Figure 10
`
`Figure 10 shows an alternate embodiment, where the gold bump 6 of Figures
`
`1A-1C is replaced with conductive particles 9. Specifically,
`
`the specification makes
`
`reference to “conductive particles 9
`diffused into the contact portion to provide
`electrical contact," for. example, at column 5,
`lines 14—16. However, Yamazaki ‘456
`
`discloses that the “diameter of the particles is slightly greater than the spacing between
`
`the semiconductor integrated circuit 2 and the substrate 1 (FIG. 1‘(D))” (column 5, lines
`
`

`

`13-19). On' the other hand, the relationship between the scale of Figure 1D and Figure
`
`1C is not clearly disclosed. Therefore, it is not shown that the openings in the silicon
`
`nitride interlayer insulating film occupy an area larger than an area occupied by each
`conductive particle. Also, Since the spacing between electrode 5 ‘and' substrate 1
`is
`smaller than the spacing between the integrated circuit 2 and the substrate 1,
`the
`particles 9 would deform (as shown in'Figure 10), thus making the area of the particles
`9 even larger with respect to the opening in the passivation film 15. That is, even if one
`
`were to assert that the opening in film 15 of Figure 1C corresponds with the opening in
`
`the second interlayer insulating film of the present claims, Yamazaki ‘456 does not,
`
`disclose, either explicitly or inherently,
`
`that each 'of at
`
`least two openings (or the
`
`opening) occupies an area larger than an area occupied by each of a plurality of the
`
`conductive particles 9. During the interview, the Examiner agreed with the Applicant’s -
`
`position in this matter.
`
`Regarding Figure 4C (reproduced above), clearly the spacer (allegedly‘gold
`
`bump .48) of' Yamazaki ‘456 occupies an area larger than the area occupied by an
`
`opening formed in the film 46. Therefore, Yamazaki “456 does 'not disclose, either
`
`explicitly or inherently, that each of at least two openings (or the opening) occupies an
`
`area larger than an area occupied by the gold bump 48. During the interview, the
`
`Examiner agreed with the Applicant’s position in this matter.
`
`Rejections based on Aomori ‘474
`
`Regarding Aomori f474, claims 1 and 11 recite “wherein'said first conductive film
`
`is connected with said second conductive film in said openings” and “wherein at least
`
`one of said conductive spacers is held over said second interlayer insulating film and in
`
`'contact with both said second conductive film and said third conductive film." The
`
`Official Action asserts that Figure 12 of Aomori ‘474 (reproduced below) teaches these
`
`features.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Fig.12
`
`
`
`Due to the relatively small scale of Figure 12, an enlarged portion of Figure 12 is
`
`reproduced below, which'highlights the features discussed in the Official Action and
`
`during the interview.
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`
`20c
`
`18c 34d
`
`_
`
`35c (, Me
`
`o ’.‘.
`
`"111.,
`'I: -'.'.'..".1‘- ...’- '.I-..'-"'- "‘
`fl. """ .'
`
`
`
`
`.1
`.3..‘.‘. ‘....'." '.'
`
`
`
`5C'6
`
`tar...
`523:)
`...-.....-----------:Val--------------------------------z:2;----------------..........
` 33:$.13: m!
`
`M!“
`_-l-
`2b ,
`2.9.
`38 36
`. 39b
`
`39a
`
`Figure 12 of Aomori ‘474 shows, for example, a source/drain 39a/b, an interlayer
`
`film (interlayer film) 3 an opening in the film 3 for an electrode pad 5c over the
`
`source/drain, an electrode pad 330 over the pad 5c, an anisotropic conductive member
`
`34c (generally spherical), over the pad 330, an electrode pad 13c over the member 340,
`an electrode pad 11c over the pad 130, and a second substrate 10. As such, thereis
`
`an intervening layer, ii pad 33c, between the pad 5c and the anisotropic conductive
`member 340, and an intervening layer, ii pad 130, between the pad 11c and the
`
`anisotropic conductive member 34c.
`
`The Official Action asserts that the “electrode layer (5)" corresponds with the
`
`second condUctive film of the present claims and that the “first counter electrode (11)”
`
`corresponds with the third conductive film of the present claims (page 5, Paper No.
`
`20070703). Although pad 5c appears to be provided in an opening in interlayer film 3,
`pad 50 is clearly not in contact With the anisotropic conductive member 34c. Although
`
`pad 11c appears to be provided on second substrate 10, pad 110 is not in contact with
`
`12
`
`

`

`the anisotropic conductive member 34c. There is an intervening layer, ii pad 33c,
`between the pad 5c and the anisotropic conductive member 340, and an intervening
`
`layer, E pad 13c, between the pad 110 and the anisotropic conductive member 340.
`
`Also, pads 5c, 11c, 13c and 33c are formed in separate etching steps. The
`formation of two pads is not the same as the formation of a film.
`It would not be
`reasonable to assert that pad 5c and pad 33c are a second conductive film, or that pad
`
`130 and pad 110 are a third conductive film.
`
`Therefore, Aomori _‘474 fails to disclose that at
`
`least one of a plurality of
`
`conductive spacers 340 is held over a second interlayer insulating film 3 and in contact
`
`with both a second conductive film 5c and a third conductive film 130, either explicitly or
`inherently. During the interview, the Examiner agreed with'the Applicant’s position in
`this matter.
`‘
`
`ReieCtions based on Kiyofumi ‘415
`
`In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision of KSR lnt’l Co. v. Teleflex
`
`m, 127 S.Ct._ 1727 (2007), the PTO's Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations
`
`issued onMay'3, 2007, a memorandum to all.Technology Center Directors '(“May 3,
`
`2007 Memo”) noting that “a showing of ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ to combine
`
`the prior art to meet the claimed invention could provide a helpful insight in determining
`
`whether claimed subject matter is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).” However,
`
`whatever test for obviousness may be employed, “the analysis supporting a rejection
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) should be made explicit, and it [is] ‘important' to identify a -
`
`reason that would have prompted a personof ordinary skill
`
`in the relevant field to
`
`combine the [prior art] elements’ in the manner claimed.”
`
`(May 3, 2007 Memo;
`
`This was reaffirmed in the PTO’s Examination Guidelines for
`emphasis added).
`Determining obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision
`
`in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. issued on October 10, 2007. Thus, the law still
`
`requires a reason for combining references (e.g., a benefit), and that reason must have
`
`“rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
`
`In re Kahn, 441
`
`F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR, 127 S.Ct. 1727). Against
`this legal backdrop, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has fallen well
`
`13
`
`

`

`short of his burden in making the pending obviousness rejections based on the
`
`'
`combination of Kiyofumi ‘415 and Tsuda ‘510 or Saiuchi ‘941.
`There is no proper or sufficient reason, either in the references themSelves or in
`the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Kiyofumi
`‘415 and Tsuda ‘510 or Saiuchi ‘941 or to combine reference teachings to achieve the
`
`claimed invention. MPEP § 2142 states that the examiner bears the initial burden of
`factually supporting any prima facie conclusion of-obviousness.
`It
`is respectfully
`submitted that the Official Action has failed to carry this burden. While the Official
`
`Action relies on various teachings of the cited prior art to disclose aspects of the
`
`claimed invention and asserts that these aspects could be modified in .the manner
`
`asserted in the Official Action, it_ is submitted that the Official Action does not adequately
`set forth why one of skill in the art would combine the references to achieve the features
`
`of the present invention.
`The test for obviousness is not whether the references “could have been"
`
`combined or modified as asserted in the Official ActiOn, but
`
`rather whether the
`
`references should have been. As noted in MPEP § 2143.01, “The mere fact that.
`
`references E be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination
`
`ln_re
`obvious unless the prior art also suggests the desirability of the combination."
`m, 916 F.2d 680, 16 USPQZd 1430' (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Thus, it
`
`is respectfully submitted that the standard set forth in the Official Action is improper to
`support a finding of prima facie obviousness.
`‘
`
`The Official Action asserts that the “common potential (305)" of Kiyofumi ‘415
`
`' corresponds with the second conductive film of the present claims, and that the “facing
`
`electrode (311)” of Kiyofumi
`
`‘415 corresponds with the third conductive film of the
`
`present claims (page 7, Paper No. 20070703; Figure 3(0) of Kiyofumi ‘415 reproduced
`
`,below).
`
`14
`
`

`

`32!
`
`-" a»;mm};9m»;=;',',‘;;',',';','»9;;',';;:
`
`312
`303
`
`“30 1
`
`320
`
`305
`
`Also, the Official Action notes “an electroconduCtive adhesive (320) between first
`
`substrate and the second substrate
`
`and in contact with... common potential 305 and
`
`facing electrode (311)" (pages 7-8, Paper No. 0070919). The Official Action concedes
`that Kiyofumi ‘415 “fails to disclose the conductive spacers over the second interlayer
`
`insulating film which [is in] contact with both the second conductive film and third
`
`conductive film” (page 8, Paper No. 20070703).
`
`The Official Action relies on Tsuda ‘510 to allegedly teach conductive particles 37
`
`(Figure 9, reproduced below).
`
`[E16]
`
`37
`
`32
`
`. 37
`
`3'7, 32
`
`21, 27
`
`fiat-“olorncnlolonn_areTwyla“
`
`23
`
`33
`
`Alternately, the Official Action relies on Saiuchi ‘941 to allegedly teach spacers 8
`
`or conductive fine spheres 29 (Figures 1 and 5, reproduced below).
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`13
`'..'....'
`'.""."m
`
`
`
`mmwww“
` 9\[
`
`11
`
`
`SEOWOWfiKomomoafio‘s‘
`
` \1
`.m”I‘7......'...‘
`§‘\“\‘\“‘k\‘\\\\‘\‘\‘\‘“
`12
`8
`2
`
`
`V/zfifsiflm”25%:
`
`24
`
`FIG. 5
`
`‘
`
`FIG. 1'
`
`Without any specific references to Kiyofumi ‘415 or Tsuda“510 in support and
`
`without statements which establish the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`present‘invention,‘the Official Action asserts that “[it] would have been Obvious
`
`to
`
`replace the electroconductive adhesive [320] of the [Kiyofumi] ‘415 publication, which
`
`only creates an electrical connection, with the conductive particles [37] of the [Tsuda]
`
`‘510 publication, which both creates an electrical connection and regulates the cell. gap,
`because the added function. of regulating the cell gap improves the clearness of. images
`
`displayed by the liquid crystal display device” (page 8, Paper No. 20070703).
`
`Alternately, again without any specific references to Kiyofumi ‘41 5 or Saiuchi ‘941
`
`in support and ”without statements which establish the level of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the present invention, the Official Action asserts that “one
`
`would be
`
`motivated to replace the electro-conductive adhesive [320] of the [Kiyofumi]
`
`‘415
`
`publication, which only creates an electrical connection, with the gold coated conductive
`particles [8/29] of the [Saiuchi] ‘941 patent, which both creates an electrical connection
`and regulates the cell gap, because the added function of regulating the cell gap
`
`improves the clearness of images displayed by the liquid crystal display device” (page
`
`8, Paper No. 20070703). The Applicant respectfully disagrees and traverses the above
`
`assertions in the Official Action.
`There is insufficient reason to replace the electroconductive adhesive 320 of
`
`Kiyofumi ‘415 with either the conductive particles 37 of Tsuda ‘510 or the spacers 8/29
`of Saiuchi ‘941. The Official Action asserts that the conductive particles 37 of Tsuda
`
`‘510 or the spacers 8/29 of Saiuchi ‘941 are necessary to regulate cell gap (pages 8 and
`
`9, Paper No. 20070703). However,
`
`in Kiyofumi ‘415,
`
`the gap agents 321 already
`
`16
`
`

`

`regulate the cell gap, thus the alleged modification of Kiyofumi ‘415 is redundant. Also,
`
`the conductive particles 37 of Tsuda ‘510 and the spacers 8/29 of Saiuchi ‘941 are
`
`compressible. The cell gap appears to be regulated, for examp’le, by spacers 11 in
`Tsuda ‘510 and, for example, by sealing material 10 in Saiuchi ‘941 formed at the
`
`periphery of the device. Further,
`it would appear that additional modifications would
`need to be made to Kiyofumi ‘415 in order to accommodate the conductive particles 37
`
`of Tsuda ‘510 or the spacers 8/29 of Saiuchi ‘941. Such extensive modifications are
`not taught or suggested in the references. During the interview, the Examiner agreed
`
`_with,the Applicant’s position in this matter.
`
`If one were to rely on gap agents 321 of Figure 3(c) of Kiyofumi
`
`‘415 to
`
`correspond with the conductive spacers of the present claims, it is noted that the facing
`
`electrode 311‘ (allegedly the third conductive film) does not appear to make direct
`
`contact with the gap agents 321 and that the pad 305 also does not appear to make
`
`the gap agents 321 are non-
`Further,
`direct contact with the- gap agents 321.
`conductive. As such, the gap- agents 321 of Kiyofumi ‘415 are not conductive spacers.
`
`Further,
`
`if it
`
`is asserted that 'gap agents 321 of Kiyofumi should be replaced by the
`
`conductive particles 37 of Tsuda ‘510 or the spacers 8/29 of Saiuchi ‘941, then such
`proposed modification of Kiyofumi ‘415 would appear to destroy the functionality of
`Kiyofumi “415 by short-circuiting the device (if gap agents 321 are replaced with~
`conductive spacers).
`In addition, one of skill in the art would not be motivated to make
`
`any such modification because .Tsuda ‘510 and Saiuchi
`
`‘941 do not disclose the
`
`multilayer structure of insulating layers and conductive layers.
`
`Since the contact
`
`portion of Kiyofumi ‘415 has a multilayer structure and a contact hole, one would need
`
`to consider the gap between the surfaces of the substrates,
`
`if a conductive particle
`
`would be used. On the other hand, since the conductive particle can be compressed in .
`
`a certain range, the cell gap would need to'be considered. When using conductive
`
`adhesive as in Kiyofumi ‘415, however, since the size of conductive adhesive can be
`easily changed, one does .not need to care about the cell gap When using conductive
`
`adhesive.
`
`'
`
`Therefore,
`
`the Applicant respectfully submits that the Official Action has not
`
`provided a proper or sufficient reason, either in the references themselves or in the
`
`17
`
`

`

`knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Kiyofumi ‘415
`
`‘ and Tsuda ‘510 or Saiuchi
`
`‘941 or to combine reference teachings to achieve the
`
`claimed invention.
`
`’
`
`In the present application,
`
`it is respectfully submitted that the prior art of record,
`
`either alone- or in combination, does not expressly or impliedly suggest the claimed,
`
`invention and the Official Action has not presented a convincing line of reasoning as to
`why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of
`
`the teachings of the references.
`
`For the reasons stated above, the Official Action has not formed a proper prima
`
`facie case of obviousness.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`reconsideration and withdrawal
`
`of_ the
`
`rejections under’ 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are in order and respectfully requested.
`
`Reiections based on Moriyama ‘333
`
`The rejections based 'on Moriyama “333 appear to be based, at least in part, on a
`
`misunderstanding on the part of the third party requester of-the relationship between the
`
`It appears that one cause of confusion when
`various Figures in Moriyama ‘333.
`interpreting the Moriyama "333 reference is the relationship between Figures 6 and 7
`
`and Figures 4 and 5. Specifically, Figure 7(a) is a cross section through a “terminal
`portion” (paragraph [0003] of the English translation) of Figure 6 at section E-E’ or F—F’
`(reproduced below).
`'
`
`18
`
`

`

`
`
`Figures 6 and 7 do not relate to Figures 4 and 5.
`
`In Moriyama ‘333, Figures 6
`
`and 7 are directed to conventional art; whereas, Figures 4 and 5 are an improvement.
`
`Figure 5 is a cross section of Figure 4 at section D-D’ (reprodUced below).
`
`19
`
`

`

`
`
`Through the Official Action, features from Figures 4 and 5 are mingled with
`
`features from Figures 6 and 7 (page 10, Paper No. 20070703). However, it is not clear
`
`why one would combine Figures 4/5 with Figures 6/7. The Applicant respectfully
`
`’ submits that it is not appropriate to mix and match features from Figures 6 and 7 with
`features from Figures 4 and 5 or vice-versa.
`For this reason alone,
`the Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses the rejections in the Official Action based on Moriyama ‘333.
`
`Furthermore, the Official Action appears to rely on overlay metal
`
`layer 3 and
`
`transparent metal layer 4, which is formed over layer 3, of Moriyama ‘333 (Figure 7(a))
`
`to teach the second-conductive film of the present claims. However, the metal particle
`.16 in Figure 7(a) Of Moriyama ‘333 only makes contact with layer 4.
`If one were to
`
`argue that film- 4 corresponds with the second conductive film of the present claims,
`
`then film 4 is not formed “on” film 1, which is relied upon to allegedly teach the first
`
`conductive film.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Also, Moriyama ‘333 teaches that layers 3 and 4 are patterned in different steps
`
`and that the surface area of layer 3 is less than half the surface area' of the layer 4 (s_e§
`
`Abstract, Composition; and paragraph [0017] of the English language translation).
`
`In
`
`contrast,
`
`in the present
`
`invention,
`
`the second conductive film is,
`
`for example, an
`
`aluminum titanium film patterned in the same step. The formation of two layers in
`
`Moriyama ‘333 is not the same as the formation of a second conductive film, as
`
`It would not be reasonable to assert that overlay metal layer 3 and
`presently claimed. .
`transparent-metal layer 4 are a second conductive film.
`‘ Also, it is not clear why one of
`
`ordinary skill in' the art at the time of the present invention would seek to add a layer to
`
`the device of the present claims. Conversely, removal ofeither layer 3 or layer'4 from
`Moriyama ‘333 would appear to destroy the underlying functionality of Moriyama ‘333.
`
`Aomori ‘474 does not cure these deficiencies in Moriyama ‘333 for at least the
`
`reasons noted above and in the Response filed September 10, 2007.
`
`Therefore, the alleged combination of Moriyama ‘333 and Aomori ‘474 does not
`
`teach or suggest that a first conductive film is connected with a second conductive film
`
`in openings (or in an opening) and that at least one of a plurality of conductive spacers"
`
`is held ‘over a second interlayer insulating film and in contact with both the second
`conductive film and a third conductive film.
`
`‘Since the prior art does not teach, either explicitly or inherently, or suggest the
`
`above-referenced features of the present. invention, anticipation and obviousness
`
`rejections cannot be maintained. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the
`
`rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are in order and respectfully requested.
`
`With respect to paragraph 14, the Patent Owner notes that prior art of record
`
`discloses conductive spacers dispersed-in a sealing medium.
`
`For example, JP 3-
`
`308510 relied upon in paragraph 8 of the Official Action appears to teach such feature
`in at least paragraphs [0010], [0021], and [0026]. The Patent Owner agrees, in any
`
`event, that the prior art fails to disclose or suggest each and every feature of claims 6-
`
`10 and 21-25 and that the patentability of these claims should be confirmed. However,
`
`since the Patent Owner cannot ascertain with certainty the reasons for confirmation of
`
`these claims,
`
`the above prior art
`
`is identified for the Examiner’s further review,
`
`if
`
`necessary.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Should the Examiner believe that anything further would be desirable to place
`this application in better condition for allowance, the Examiner is invited to contact the
`undersigned at the telephone number listed below.
`
`' Respectfully submitted,
`
`#2—
`Eric J. Robinson
`Reg. No. 38,285
`
`Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, PC.
`PMB 955 .
`‘
`21010 Southbank Street
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165
`(571) 434-6789
`
`i
`
`'22
`
`