Obviousness

I cannot perform an obviousness analysis for US patent 9722104 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at this time.

To conduct an obviousness analysis, I would require:

1. The full text of the claims of US patent 9722104. The "Plain-Language Overview of Each Independent Claim" section explicitly states that the full text of the patent's claims was not provided. Obviousness is assessed on a claim-by-claim basis, and without the claim language, it is impossible to determine what specific subject matter is being claimed and thus whether it would be obvious in light of prior art.
2. Specific prior art references and their detailed disclosures. While the Google Patents page lists "Prior art keywords" (e.g., conductive type, semiconductor region, passivation film) and notes priority dates from Korean applications (KR1020140168624A and KR1020150122846A), these are not explicit prior art references cited against the patent during its prosecution, nor is their content provided. Without the substance of specific prior art documents, I cannot identify combinations of references or explain the motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine them.

Therefore, without the essential information of the claims and the content of relevant prior art, I cannot identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious or explain the motivation to combine them.