REMARKS
`
`This paper is submitted as a full and complete response to the final Office Action dated
`
`August 4, 2011. The Examiner is respectfully requested to give due reconsideration to this
`
`application, to indicate the allowability of the claims, and to passthis case to issue.
`
`Status of the Claims
`
`As outlined above, claims 3 and 4 are pendingin this application. Following entry ofthis
`
`Amendment, claims 3 and 4 have been amended.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 4 was objected to with regard to the limitation “the concave surfaces and convex
`
`surfaces in the through hole have bending portions.” By this Amendment, Applicants have
`
`amended claim 4 to nowrecite “wherein the concave surfaces and convex surfaces of the uneven
`
`surface of the terminal portions have bending portions,” thereby obviating the objection to
`
`claim 4. Applicants respectfully request that the objection to claim 4 be withdrawn.
`
`Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Claims 3 and 4
`
`Claims 3 and 4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly being unpatentable
`
`over Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0122989) (hereinafter “Park”’), in
`
`view of Fujimuraet al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,973,763) (hereinafter “Fujimura”).
`
`In the rejection,it
`
`wasalleged that Park discloses the claimed concave surfaces and convex surfaces havingalinear
`
`shape and arranged parallel to each other. Contrary to the rejection, Applicants respectfully
`
`submit that the present display device, including, but not limited to, its concave surfaces and
`
`convex surfaces, are not anticipated by or in any way obvious from Park, individually or in
`
`combination with Fujimura. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, and in order to even more
`
`clearly highlight novel and non-obvious aspects of the present display, Applicants have amended
`
`claims 3 and 4 to enhance the aforementioned distinctions. Applicants respectfully submit that,
`
`upon consideration of claims 3 and 4 (as currently pending), and in view of the following
`
`discussion, claims 3 and 4 will be found to be novel and in no way obvious in view ofthe cited
`
`priorart.
`
`

`

`The present
`
`invention is directed to a novel and non-obvious display device which
`
`includes novel features not taught or in any way obviousin view ofthe cited prior art. One novel
`
`aspect, as recited in claim 3, is a terminal portion having concave surfaces and convex surfaces,
`
`in which the concave surfaces and convex surfaces each have a respective planar based portion
`
`in parallel planes, and wherein a gap and a width between the respective planar base portion of
`
`the concave surfaces and convex surfaces are not uniform.
`
`Referring to the present specification for exemplary purposes, but to in no way limit the
`
`scope of the claims in any way, the planar based portion of the concave portions (LP) vary in
`width from the other LP planar surfaces. Similarly, the width of the planar based portion ofthe
`convex surfaces (HP) vary in width. See present Figures 5A and 5B.
`
`Although the Examiner has alleged that
`
`the gate link line 206 (Park, Figure 7)
`
`is
`
`equivalent to the claimed terminal portion, the terminal portions of the display device in Figure 7
`
`are actually indicated as, e.g., 208, 254 and 226, 242 (see Park Figure 7 and paragraphs [0058]-
`
`[0060]). More importantly, the terminal portion(s) of Park have a uniform linear and planar
`
`shape (see the annotated Figure 7 from Park, below).
`
`Park
`
`,
`Cc
`vy
`aSAERO
`See
`
`
`
`Shape of terminal portions are form of
`point and line up uniformly
`
`u
`
`o 28.
`stb
`
`SMe SS
`
`CosaipoS
`ODBa
`Te
`ASSASS
`SfRane
`SS\SS
`
`

`

`In sharp contrast to the claimed concave surfaces and convex surfaces, the concave and
`
`convex portions of the terminal in Park (i.e. those in the terminal portion [gate pad terminal 136,
`
`Figure 7]) have a uniform gap and width between concave surfaces and convex surfaces in the
`
`uneven surface of the terminal portion. Thus, Park fails to teach or in any way make obvious the
`
`claimed gap and width between the respective base portions of the concave surfaces and the
`
`convex surfaces of the uneven surface of the terminal portion are not uniform.
`
`Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not refer to the gate link line 206 (Park)
`
`as a terminal or a terminal portion (i.e. part of a terminal), in accordance with the plain meaning
`
`of the term as usedin the art of display devices. One ofordinary skill in the art will understand
`
`that the term “terminal” means a component or device which is used to connect one part to
`
`another device. Furthermore, the present specification uses the term “terminal” and “terminal
`
`portion” consistent with the commonusage of the term in the art of display devices. However,
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that the Examiner’s interpretation of the gate link line 206 as
`
`being a terminal portion is completely inconsistent with the understanding of the term “terminal”
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the displayart.
`
`Applicants further respectfully submit that Fujimura fails to teach or in any way make
`
`obvious, individually or in combination with Park, aspects of the claimed concave surfaces and
`
`convex surfaces, as discussed above.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that the rejection to claim 3 be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Referring to claim 4, Applicants respectfully submit
`
`that Park,
`
`individually or
`
`in
`
`combination with Fujimura, fails to teach or in any way make obviousthat the claimed concave
`
`surfaces and convex surfaces of the uneven surface of the terminal portion have bending
`
`portions. As discussed above with regard to the rejections of claim 3, Park fails to teach orin
`
`any way make obvious the claimed terminal portion which has the recited concave surfaces and
`
`convex surfaces. Again, Applicants respectfully note that, in Park, the gate pad terminal 254 and
`
`the data pad terminal 258 have unevennessin their respective surfaces defined by a gate pad
`
`contact hole 242 or data pad 226 (see Park, Figure 7 and paragraph [0060]). Clearly,
`
`the
`
`aforementioned elements, via their respective shapes,
`
`line up uniformly.
`
`Furthermore, as
`
`discussed above, although the Examiner has alleged that the gate link line 206 of Park is
`
`equivalent to the claimed terminal portion, Applicants respectfully submit that the gate link line
`
`

`

`206 is not a terminal portion. Based on the foregoing, Applicants respectfully request that the
`rejection to claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) be withdrawn.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In light of the Amendments and Remarks, Applicants respectfully request early and
`favorable action with regardto the present application, and a Notice of Allowanceforall pending
`claimsis earnestly solicited.
`
`Should there be any outstanding issues requiring discussion that would further the
`
`prosecution and allowance of the above-captioned application, the Examineris invited to contact
`
`the Applicants’ undersigned representative at the address and telephone numberindicated below.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Stephen J. Weyer
`Registration No. 43,259
`
`
`
`STITES & HARBISON PLLC
`1199 North Fairfax Street
`Suite 900
`Alexandria, VA 22314
`Telephone: (703) 739-4900
`Customer No. 38327
`November3, 2011
`
`J70293:01291:223972:1:ALEXANDRIA
`
`