Exhibit 1003 (continued)
`Exhibit 1003 (continued)
`
`

`
`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).
`
`([216]
`
`37
`
`32
`I
`
`037
`
`37. 32
`
`21727
`
`-UZA-‘fl
`
`jm '
`
`,
`
`23
`
`33
`
`22
`
`8 ‘
`
`37
`
`33
`
`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).
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 179
`
`

`
`1.ZjIZ".JCZIZZI’1ZZZCCZZZ
`
`%=¥*‘“!?r‘l!E!§‘63"!.!E°W:’:!£'3:¥21!llk~
`73157153131;11173111133313:
`
`FIG. 5
`
`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 ‘415 or Saiuchi ‘941
`
`in support andwithout 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 functi_on 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
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 180
`
`

`
`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 tobe 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
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 181
`
`

`
`knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Kiyofumi ‘415
`
`A 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 imp|i_ed|y 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
`
`various Figures in Moriyama ‘333.
`
`It appears that one cause of confusion when
`
`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).
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 182
`
`

`
`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).
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 183
`
`

`
`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 secondconductive 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.
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 184
`
`

`
`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 (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 |ayer'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 dispersedin 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 [0O10], [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.
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 185
`
`

`
`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,
`
`Z,_(—é"
`Eric J. Robinson
`Reg. No. 38,285
`
`Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C.
`PMB 955 .
`,
`21010 Southbank Street
`
`-
`
`~
`
`Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165
`(571) 434-6789
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 186
`
`

`
`Attorney Docket No. 0756-7672
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Group Art Unit:
`
`3991
`
`' Examiner: Stephen J.. Stein
`
`b d _
`I h
`ere y ce ify
`a
`IS correspon ence lS
`being deposited with the United States Postal
`Sen/ice with sufficient postage as First Class,
`Mail
`in
`an
`envelope
`addressed
`to:
`Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450,
`Alexandria,
`VA
`22313-1450,
`on
`0’
`-o
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) ) )
`
`(3.
`
`In re Patent Application of:
`
`Yoshiharu HIRAKATA et al.
`
`Reexamination No. 90/007,985
`Filed, March 24’ 2006
`For: CONTACT STRUCTURE
`
`(Ex Pan‘e reexamination of U.S.
`
`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
`ATTN: Central Reexamination Unit
`Honorable Commissioner of Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`.
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`The Applicant appreciates Examiner Stein's and Examiner Jones’
`
`time in
`
`conducting 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 U.S. Patent No. 5,757,456 to
`Yamazaki, U.S. ‘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 6-308510 to Tsuda and
`
`- U.S. Patent No. 5,486,941 to Saiuchi) (JP 5-241183 to Furushima and U.S. 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 Ownefs Statement of the Interview and Supplemental Response.
`
`In the following, the Applicant summarizes each of the points discussed during
`
`the interview by the Applicant’s representatives. Also,
`
`the Applicant has included
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 187
`
`

`
`clarifications and reproductions of pertinent Figures that were discussed during the
`interview.
`A
`
`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 discussedthe rejection
`
`based on Kiyofumi ‘415; however, the Applicant has not, until now, provided a written
`
`response to the rejections based on Kiyofumi
`
`‘415.V 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 2B and 2C
`
`Figure 2B
`
`,,,,,,,,,,
`
`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 fabricatinga driver circuit on
`
`a surrogate substrate, temporarily adhering the driver circuit and surrogate substrate to
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 188
`
`

`
`a display device, and then removing the surrogate substrate from the display device, but
`
`v leaving behind the driver circuit mounted to the display device.
`
`Figures 2B and 2C of Yamazaki ‘456, which are reproduced above, illustrate that
`
`the reference relates to the fabrication and.mounting 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 2B and 2C. 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.
`
`FlG.6
`
`251
`252
`322
`VIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHTIIIIIIIIIIA
`
`\\\\‘n
`\\\\\‘
`I .\\\\\\\\\\‘T\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
`j:—.....Z....:—
`VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIJ
`CIA
`D’.
`, _.,__
`#1 .I!f'=‘t:'.‘
`
`p1XEL REG|oN
`
`V
`
`COMMON CONTACT
`PORTION’
`
`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
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 189
`
`

`
`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
`V separation.
`.
`
`37
`
`37
` '
`
`- Figme 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 5C of Yamazaki ‘456 (reproduced below) shows the
`beginning of the removal
`(peeling away) ‘of substrate 31.
`Figure 5C shows an
`incomplete device, and the structure shown in Figure 5C is not an active matrix device.
`Figure 5D of Yamazaki ‘456 (reproduced below) shows the stick driver portion of the‘
`display after substrate 31 has been removed.
`(NOTE:
`Figure 5D is flipped 180
`degrees with respect to Figure 5C.)
`'
`4
`
`"""
`
`g’§‘_;'4I4-..“§‘%§-'*""I7|-".\37-‘i
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 190
`
`

`
`W&%%— W/I/},7%_
`
`.
`|.:§-I..I-%‘:9.-.£'S.-1..I- ‘ ........
`\\\\\\\\\\\V !k\‘\\\\
`tritium
`
`Figure 5D
`
`Therefore, the surrogate substrate 31 cannot correspond to either the first or
`second substrate of the-present claims.
`.
`
`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 5C 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 as if in the balance of the claim (MPEP § 2111.02).
`
`In addition, Yamazaki ‘456 doesnot disclose, either explicitly or inherently, at
`two openings (recited in claims 1 and 11;
`i.e. Figure 2A, a "storm grate”;
`
`least
`
`reproduced below).
`
`FlG.2A
`
`110
`
`l_ ' " " ~ ‘ ' " " ' " "'1
`
`lsmmmm‘Nessa»®N§§moases
`
`lmmssg
`
`103(‘l11) 1043
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 191
`
`

`
`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,
`
`\\.\~e,\\\\\\\\\§.\"\\";\\\\}_\\\\\\\\"'n.\\\\\‘
`I
`s\
`‘
`'
`'
`'
`I
`K
`‘ m .
`E? III,‘ E}
`Figure
`
` %///% j3.
`
`lfllfllfllfllflflliflflflliflflllfllllllllllflflflflflllffllfllflfllflflllllfllfllflflllflllllllllllflfllflllfflllllflfllllfflfflllfl
`
`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.on|y; i.e. Figure 2B, a “hair
`brush"; reproduced below).
`A
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 192
`
`

`
`/
`
`/'/'/'
`
`.//.//2.’./5/5/’//..
`//1»//7%
`
`1o3(111)
`
`1048
`
`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, 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 ho|e” (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 reasonable 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,
`
`Yamazaki
`
`‘456 does not
`
`teach, 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 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-App|icant’s position in this matter.
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 193
`
`

`
`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 tobe incorrect in Figure 1A, but
`appears to be correct
`in Figures 1B 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 a portion of Figure 1A, and Figure 1C (reproduced below)‘is an
`
`enlarged view of a portion.of Figure 1B.
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 194
`
`

`
`V _, '-
`II‘F ,
`k‘\\\\‘\\\\\\1L§\§?‘\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\W
`nu-
`;';'.3.5:5:f:f:f:§:{:ftf;{:7:33jijifififif.ff:f:f:}f;f:f_'1'»,.“H.I“,
`
`5‘\\\\\.\\\u\\\\\‘S'\‘L\$\\\k\§'\\\€
`[%l %1
`
`Figure 1D
`
`Figure 1D shows an alternate embodiment, where the gold bump 6 of Figures
`1A-1C is replaced with conductive particles 9. Specifically,
`the specification makes
`
`diffused into the contact portion to provide
`reference to “conductive particles 9
`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
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 195
`
`

`
`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
`
`is
`conductive particle. Also, since the spacing between electrode 5 andisubstrate 1
`smaller than the spacing between the integrated circuit 2 and the substrate 1,
`the
`particles 9 would deform (as shown in Figure 1D), 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 ‘474, 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.
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 196
`
`

`
`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.
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 197
`
`

`
`.
`
`35c
`
`._
`
`‘.......:':.'..-';,'_v ‘H. "t." I
`‘
`lib
`13d 34b 13C
`
`.....
`—
`
`r
`
`.
`
`.
`
`’8c
`
`34d
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.""'_'..
`14c
`'.."'I-.‘..'-.“."'
`'
`MC 34C
`W,
`egg v~A~h~Ivv -
`3 5c
`5
`
`_ . . .
`
`gm»
`
`[XI
`. 971‘.
`' /"3
`
`I
`
`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 33c, an electrode pad 130 over the member 34c,
`an electrode pad 11c over the pad 13c, and a second substrate 10. As such, there is
`
`an intervening layer, i_._e_. pad 33c, between the pad 5c and the anisotropic conductive
`member 34c, 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 5c is clearly not in contact with the anisotropic conductive member 34c. Although
`
`pad 11c appears to be provided on second substrate 10, pad 11c is not in contact with
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 198
`
`

`
`the anisotropic conductive member 340. There is an intervening layer, L_e_. pad 330,
`
`between the pad 5c and the anisotropic conductive member 34c, and an intervening
`
`layer, Le_. pad 13c, between the pad 11c and the anisotropic conductive member 34c.
`
`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
`
`13c and pad 11c are a third conductive film.
`
`least one of a plurality of
`'474 fails to disclose that at
`Therefore, Aomori
`conductive spacers 34c is held over a second interlayer insulating film 3 and in contact
`
`with both a second conductive film 5c and a third conductive film 13c, eitherexplicitly or
`
`inherently. During the interview, the Examiner agreed with the Applicant’s position in
`this matter.
`I
`
`Rejections based on Kiyofumi ‘415
`
`g
`
`In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision of KSR |nt’| Co. v. Teleflex
`
`l_ng:_., 127 S.Ct._ 1727 (2007), the PTO's Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations
`
`issued on May 3, 2007, a memorandum to all Technology Center Directors (“May 3,
`2007 Memo”) noting that “a showing of ‘teaching, suggestion, or motivation’ to combine I
`
`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
`
`£aso_n 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;
`
`emphasis added).
`
`This was reaffirmed in the PTO’s Examination Guidelines for
`
`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 gag 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 K_SB, 127 S.Ct. 1727). Against
`this legal backdrop, the Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has fallen well
`
`‘
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 199
`
`

`
`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 c_ar_1 be combined or modified does not render the resultant combination
`
`obvious unless the prior art also suggests the desirability of the combination.” llfi
`
`Mms, 916 F.2d 680, 16 USPQ2d 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(c) of Kiyofumi ‘415 reproduced
`
`. below).
`
`Exhibit 1003, page 200
`
`

`
`""” '}}'}.$':'..',‘}b'.'}W}9}}}9}})}F}}D’}}}?}}7}L
`
`E
`
`Also, the OfficialAction notes “an electroconductive adhesive (320) betw