Ex Parte PARKE et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201814509750 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation