Ex Parte PARKE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14509750 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/509,750 10/08/2014
109501 7590 11/30/2018
Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JUSTIN ANDREW PARKE
LLP and Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
1300 East Ninth Street
Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
NG(ES)022312 US PRI 1090
EXAMINER
KIM,JAYC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
rkline@tarolli.com
docketing@tarolli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUSTIN ANDREW PARKE, ERIC J. STEWART,
ROBERTS. HOWELL, HOWELL GEORGE HENRY,
BETTINA NECHA Y, HARLAN CARL CRAMER,
MATTHEW RUSSELL KING, SHALINI GUPTA,
RONALD G. FREITAG, and KAREN MARIE RENALDO
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection2 of claims
1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a circuit made by "a technique for
simultaneously fabricating integrated gallium nitride (GaN) circuits
containing both enhancement mode (e-mode) and depletion mode (d-mode)
high electron mobility transistors ('HEMTs') on the same integrated circuit
or wafer, thus increasing the versatility and performance of GaN-based
circuits." Spec. ,r 23. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A circuit comprising:
a castellated channel device comprising:
a heterostructure overlying an underlying structure,
the underlying structure compnsmg a given
semiconducting material;
a castellated channel device area formed in the
heterostructure that defines a plurality of ridge channels
comprising another semiconducting material formed over
the underlying structure, the plurality of ridge channels
being interleaved between a plurality of trenches, wherein
a top planar semiconductor surface of the given
semiconductor material in the underlying structure
1 The real party in interest is identified as Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Appeal Brief of September 22, 2017 ("App. Br."), 3.
2 Final Office Action of March 31, 2017 ("Final Act."). In this opinion, we
also refer to the Examiner's Answer of November 30, 2017 ("Ans.") and the
Reply Brief of January 25, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
between ridge channels is exposed in each of the plurality
of trenches; and
a three-sided castellated conductive gate contact
that extends across the castellated channel device area and
substantially surrounds each ridge channel around its top
and its sides to overlap a channel interface of each of the
plurality of ridge channels, the three-sided castellated
conductive gate contact extending along at least a portion
of a length of each ridge channel.
Claims Appendix (App. Br. 19).
REFERENCES
The prior art references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal are:
Ohi et al., Current Stability in Multi-Mesa-Channel AIGaN/GaN
HEMTs, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES 60 (2013) pp. 2997-
3004 ("Ohi").
Liu et al., Enhancement Mode Operation of Nanochannel Array
(NCA) AJGaN/GaN HEMTs, IEEE ELECTRON DEVICE LETTERS 33 (2012)
pp. 354--356 ("Liu").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) or (a)(2) as
being anticipated by Ohi. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner rejects claims 2-10 under 35 USC§ 103 as being
unpatentable over Ohi and Liu. Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
OPINION
Claim 1
Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim
1 because Ohi does not disclose "a castellated channel device" as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants argue that whereas the
castellated structure as recited in claim 1 has a flat surface between the top
planar semiconductor surface and the underlying structure, the prior art mesa
structure is sloped between the top and bottom surfaces. Id.
The Examiner points out, and Appellants do not dispute in the Reply
Brief, that Ohi illustrates a flat surface between the top planar semiconductor
surface and the underlying structure. Compare Ans. 4, with Reply Br. 3--4
( arguing instead regarding the vertical surface between the top planar
semiconductor surface and the underlying structure). We therefore discern
no reversible error in the Examiner's findings with regard to the anticipation
rejection.
We further note that an argument raised for the first time in a Reply
Brief can be considered waived if Appellants do not explain why it could not
have been raised previously. See Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834
(BP AI 2010) (informative) ( explaining that arguments and evidence not
timely presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a
Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) ("Properly interpreted, the
Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not
been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause."). In this
case, Appellants' so le argument in the opening brief is that the castellated
4
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
structure as recited in claim 1 has a flat surface between the top planar
semiconductor surface and the underlying structure (App. Br. 8) and we
decline to reach the additional arguments raised in the Reply Brief because
the record before us does not contain an explanation as to why the arguments
could not have been raised previously.
With regard to the claim construction argument, to the extent that
Appellants raised it for the first time in the Reply Brief in response to the
Examiner's definition of "castellated," (see Final Act. 3), Appellants do not
explain why their definition of an unrecited claim term "battlement" should
be adopted as part of the construction of the claim term "castellated." Reply
Br. 3. Appellants also do not explain why the claim term "castellated"
should exclude all structures but the particular one illustrated in Figure 2 of
the Specification. Reply Br. 3 ("FIG. 2 clearly illustrates squared openings
that provide one of ordinary skill in the art with sufficient clarity to
understand and appreciate the scope of the term 'castellated."'). "Absent an
express definition in their specification, the fact that appellants can point to
definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the
PTO' s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that
support its interpretation." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir.
1997). In this case, the specification does not define the term "castellated"
and provides that it is "not possible to describe every conceivable
combination of components or methodologies for purposes of describing the
invention ... and [ a ]ccordingly the invention is intended to embrace all such
alterations, modifications, and variations that fall within the scope of this
application." Spec. ,r 38. The plain language of claim 1, when read in light
of the Specification, does not support Appellants' argument to narrow the
5
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
term "castellated" to include only structures with squared openings. See In
re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[D]uring patent prosecution
when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and
breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.").
Claims 4 & 6
Appellants do not present arguments for claims 4 and 6 separate from
those for claim 1 and claims 4 and 6 therefore stand or fall with claim 1.
App. Br. 10, 13; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claims 2 & 3
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites the circuit "further
comprising a planar channel device is formed from a first portion of a single
shared heterostructure overlying the underlying structure in a planar channel
device area, and having a planar gate contact that is in contact with the first
portion of the single shared heterostructure."
The Examiner finds that both Ohi and Liu teach a circuit comprising a
castellated channel device and further teach a planar channel device. Final
Act. 4. Appellants do not dispute this finding. App. Br. 9.
Appellants instead argue that the Examiner reversibly erred because:
Merely fabricating a castellated channel device and a planar
channel device from the same wafer (as described in Liu) does
not mean that the two devices are part of the same device as
other reasons may exist for fabricating the two types of devices
on the same wafer ( e.g. to provide additional test controls when
making comparisons).
6
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 7 (arguing that the prior art references do not
teach or suggest "how to implement" the recited circuit).
Appellants' conclusory statements do not address the Examiner's
reasoning provided in the Final Rejection. For example, the Examiner finds
that Liu discloses that a castellated channel device illustrated in Figure 1 of
Liu and a planar channel device can be formed on the same substrate and
comprise the same semiconductor materials and that Ohi further discloses
that electrical characteristics of a planar channel device or a planar HEMT
are also measured together with a castellated channel device illustrated in
Figure 3 of Ohi, both of which can be formed on the same substrate
comprising the same semiconductor materials disclosed by Ohi suggesting to
the skilled artisan of the recited structure in claim 2. Final Act. 5.
Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's findings, for
example, the finding with regard to Figure 1 of Liu and Figure 3 of Ohi. See
App. Br. 9.
"[I]nterrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands
known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the
background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all [ can provide] an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
the fashion claimed." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418
(2007). In this case, the Examiner's "articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (id.) as
well as the supporting evidence is not addressed in the Appeal Brief.
"[M]ere statements of disagreement ... do not amount to a developed
argument." SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312,
7
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006). No reversible error has been identified with regard to
the obviousness rejection of claim 2.
Appellants do not present arguments for claim 3 separate from those
for claim 2 and claim 3 therefore stands or falls with claim 2. App. Br. 10,
13; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claims 7, 8, & 10
For independent claim 7, Appellants' argument mirrors that for claim
2. Compare App. Br. 9, with id. at 14. Because Appellants similarly do not
address the Examiner's specific findings in support of the obviousness
rejection of claim 7, no reversible error has been identified here. Compare
Final Act. 7-9 ( analyzing various portions of the prior art including Figure 1
of Ohi and Figure 3 of Liu in support of the obviousness rejection of claim
7), with App. Br. 14 (repeating the same argument which has been addressed
for claim 2).
Appellants do not present arguments for claims 8 and 10 separate
from those for claim 7 and claims 8 and 10 therefore stand or fall with claim
7. App. Br. 15, 17; see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claim 5
The claim limitation at issue for dependent claim 5 is "an isolation
region in the single shared heterostructure that electrically isolates the planar
channel device from the castellated channel device."
The Examiner reasons that the inclusion of an isolation region as
recited is a common practice so that the different device regions may be
isolated and can function independently and that a skilled artisan would
8
Appeal2018-002968
Application 14/509,750
understand the electrical characteristics reflected in Figure 3 of Ohi to
require electrical isolation between the castellated channel device and the
planar channel device for the independent measurement. Final Act. 6.
As Appellants argue, however, the record does not show how
measurements were taken that corresponds to the isolation region for Figure
3 of Ohi. App. Br. 11. To the extent that the Examiner finds that the
isolation region is inherent in the prior art (Ans. 6), the record does not show
that the "isolation region" at issue here is necessarily present in the prior art.
See In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d 1375, 1379--80 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We also
decline to consider any new evidence raised in the Answer. The Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 5 is not sustained based on the current record.
Claim 9
For dependent claim 9, Appellants' arguments mirror those for claim
5. Compare App. Br. 10-13, with id. at 15-17. For the same reason as
provided for claim 5, the obviousness rejection of claim 9 is not sustained.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 5 and 9 is reversed.
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1 is affirmed.
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 2--4, 6-8, and 10 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9