Ex Parte Sheppard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2016

12118243 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/118,243 05/09/2008 Scott T. Sheppard 5308-876 1635
65106 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
12/13/2016 EXAMINER
MAI, ANH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
u spto @ my ersbigel. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT T. SHEPPARD, R. PETER SMITH, YIFENG WU,
STEN HEIKMAN, and MATTHEW JACOB-MITOS
Appeal 2015-005063
Application 12/118,243
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—8, 12—18, 30 and 33—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over at least the basic combination of Sheppard (US 2007 /0158683 Al,
published July 12, 2007) and Qiao {Low resistance ohmic contacts on
AIGaN/GaNstructures using implantation and the “advancing” Al/Ti
metallization, 74 Applied Physics Letters 2652-54 (1999))1. We have
1 The Examiner applied additional references to this basic combination to
reject various dependent claims (for a full listing of the rejections, see, Final
Action 8—11; Ans. 8—12).
Appellants do not separately argue these additional rejections {see, e.g., App.
Br. 4).
Appeal 2015-005063
Application 12/118,243
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention (emphasis added):
1. A method of forming a semiconductor device,
comprising:
providing a dielectric layer on a Group Ill-nitride semiconductor
layer;
selectively removing portions of the dielectric layer over spaced apart
source and drain regions of the semiconductor layer;
implanting ions having a first conductivity type directly into the
source and drain regions of the semiconductor layer wherein an implantation
energy is selected to provide a peak implant concentration near a two
dimensional electron gas region at an interface of the semiconductor layer
and a channel layer underlying the semiconductor layer, wherein the ions
are implanted at an implant energy less than about 80 keV;
after selectively removing the portions of the dielectric layer,
annealing the semiconductor layer and the dielectric layer to activate the
implanted ions; and
providing metal contacts on the source and drain regions of the
semiconductor layer.
Appellants focus the arguments on independent claim 1 (App. Br. 7—
10) and dependent claim 4 (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2). Appellants do not
present separate arguments for any of the other dependent claims, including
those separately rejected. Thus, all the claims stand or fall together, except
for dependent claim 4.
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of
Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this
record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
2
Appeal 2015-005063
Application 12/118,243
Appellants’ representative claim 1 is unpatentable over the applied prior art.
On the other hand, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
adequately explained how the prior art teaches or suggests the subject matter
of dependent claim 4. We thus sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections
essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Answer, but
reverse as to claim 4.
We add the following for emphasis.
It is axiomatic that “the PTO must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification .... Therefore, we
look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but
otherwise apply a broad interpretation.” In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[A]s applicants may amend claims
to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no
unfairness to the applicant or patentee.” Id.
The Examiner relies upon Qiao for the details of a direct ion
implantation step to be used in Sheppard (e.g., Ans. 3). Appellants argue
that the claimed direct implantation energy being selected to provide a peak
implant concentration “near” the “two dimensional electron gas region”
[2DEG region/interface] as recited in claim 1 is not taught in Qiao, and that
Qiao only teaches that an indirect implantation method can achieve this
location. (App. Br. 8 and 9; Reply Br. 1 and 2). Appellants further contend
that the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to adjust the
power below 40keV in Qiao’s direct implantation method to achieve a closer
location for its direct implantation method is “pure speculation on the part of
the Examiner” (App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 1 and 2).
3
Appeal 2015-005063
Application 12/118,243
The Examiner points out that Appellants’ argument for claim 1 relies
upon the meaning of “near” (Ans. 13 and 14). The only specific location
o
described in the Specification is “e.g., within about 100 A of the interface”
(Spec. 167 (emphasis added); see also, dependent claim 4). It is well
established that limitations not appearing in the claim cannot be relied upon
for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Appellants have not directed our attention to any persuasive reasoning
or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation that the
claim encompasses a peak concentration within 270 A of the 2DEG interface
as described in Qiao for the Sheppard/Qiao combination is unreasonable.
Notably, there is no special definition in the Specification that would
establish that claim 1 is limited to circumstances where “near” means within
o
100 A. Indeed, Appellants’ Specification merely states that, in some
embodiments, the peak is “slightly within” the channel layer, “e.g., [for
o
example]” the peak concentration may be “within about 100 A of the
interface between the channel layer and boundary layer” (Spec. 1 67).
On the other hand, with respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants
contend that the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to
adjust the power below 40keV in Qiao’s direct implantation method to
achieve a closer location for its direct implantation method is “pure
speculation on the part of the Examiner” (App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 1 and 2;
Ans. 14). Appellants describe using an implant step at an energy of about 40
to about 80 keV, and an embodiment of about 50 keV, in their method
(Spec. 170). As Appellants also point out, Qiao teaches the advantage of
using indirect implantation is to achieve the projected range of the Si ions,
4
Appeal 2015-005063
Application 12/118,243
Rp, closer to the semiconductor surface region than is achievable with direct
implantation (App. Br. 10, Qiao p. 2652, col. 2; see also Reply Br. 4).
In light of these circumstances, the Examiner has not adequately
explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to use
o
a direct implantation method to achieve a location within about 100 A for
the peak concentration, and we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claim 4.
We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of all the other claims on
appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5