Ex Parte Takase

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 2013

11515747 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TADASHI TAKASE ____________ Appeal 2010-009307 Application 11/515,747 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EVANS, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claim 1. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. Appeal 2010-009307 Application 11/515,747 2 BACKGROUND Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a semiconductor laser element, and particularly, to a semiconductor laser element used as a light source for an information recording apparatus. Spec. 1, ll. 11-13. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method of producing a semiconductor laser element, comprising: a step of growing a lower cladding layer, an active layer, a first left upper cladding layer, a first etching stopper layer, a second left upper cladding layer, a second etching stopper layer, an upper cladding layer and a contact layer in that order on a semiconductor substrate to form a laminate structure; a step of doping an impurity end portions near to edge surfaces of the laminate structure so as to cross over the active layer to form window regions; a step of etching the contact layer in the window regions; a step of forming a protective film to form a ridge; a step of dry etching the laminate structure on both sides of the protective film thereby partially removing the second left upper cladding layer in the window regions and partially removing the upper cladding layer in a region extending between the window regions; and a step of wet etching the window regions up to the first etching stopper layer and the region, between the window regions, up to the second etching stopper layer. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Koch US 4,932,032 Jun. 5, 1990 Suyama US 5,022,036 Jun.4, 1991 Shima US 5,161,166 Nov. 3, 1992 Mersali US 6,025,207 Feb. 15, 2000 Appeal 2010-009307 Application 11/515,747 3 Kuniyasu US 2002/0061044 A1 May 23, 2002 Matumoto US 2003/0026309 A1 Feb. 6, 2003 Matsumura US 2003/0128729 A1 Jul. 10, 2003 Michael Quirk & Julian Serda, Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology p. 436 (Prentice-Hall 2001) (“Quirk”). REJECTION Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suyama, Shima, Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu, Mersali, and Matsumura. Ans. 3-6. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art discloses “a step of wet etching the window regions up to the first etching stopper layer and the region, between the window regions, up to the second etching stopper layer,” as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action. We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions and highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that no proper combination of Suyama, Shima, Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu, Mersali, and Matsumura discloses the disputed step (App. Br. 4-7). Appellant’s arguments are in part improperly based on individual reference disclosures, rather than considering the combination that is the basis for the Appeal 2010-009307 Application 11/515,747 4 rejection (e.g., “Suyama fails to anticipate Appellant’s claimed method”) (App. Br. 5). Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner improperly applies the standard for a product-by-process claim (App. Br. 5). We agree with the Examiner’s detailed findings that each step of claim 1 is disclosed by the combination of Suyama, Shima, Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu, Mersali, and Matsumura (Ans. 3-9). In particular with respect to the disputed step, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Quirk and Mersali considered individually fail to meet the disputed step (App. Br. 6). The Examiner correctly finds that Quirk and Mersali disclose using wet etching after the dry etching (Ans. 6). We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Suyama, Koch, and Matumoto to use wet etching in the same regions of the structure (i.e., the window regions and the region between the window regions) where dry etching had previously been applied (Ans. 8-9). We agree with Appellant to the extent that Appellant argues that the Examiner did not apply only the disclosure of Quirk and Mersali to “a step of wet etching the window regions up to the first etching stopper layer and the region, between the window regions, up to the second etching stopper layer” (App. Br. 7). However, in addition to the Examiner’s findings regarding Quirk, Mersali, and Suyama (Ans. 6, 7-9), the Examiner also finds that Koch and Matumoto disclose a first etching stopper layer and a second etching stopper layer (Ans. 4, 7, 9). We agree with the Examiner that in the Appeal Brief, Appellant fails to challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding Koch and Matumoto (Ans. 9). Appeal 2010-009307 Application 11/515,747 5 Accordingly, based on the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Suyama, Shima, Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu, Mersali, and Matsumura. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD