Ex Parte Wu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 10, 2016

12415139 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/415,139 03/31/2009
126149 7590
Keysight Technologies, Inc,
C/O CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
11/15/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bing-Ruey Wu
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.
20090011-01 2195
EXAMINER
TANG,SUIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2016 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):
keysightdocketing@cpaglobal.com
notice.legal@keysight.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BING-RUEY WU
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415,139
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed March 31, 2009 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action appealed from mailed January 13, 2014 (Final Act.),
the Appeal Brief filed September 15, 2014 (App. Br.), the Examiner's
Answer mailed January 5, 2015 (Ans.), and the Reply Brief filed March 5,
2015 (Reply Br.).
2 The real party in interest is identified by Appellant as Agilent
Technologies, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
anticipated by Nguyen '253 3 and claims 8-13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Nguyen '185 4 and Moon. 5 Appellant does not
argue under a separate heading the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Nguyen '185, Moon, and Van
Zeghbroeck6 as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). See Final Act. 6.
Therefore, we summarily affirm the rejection of claim 14.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-16 and
designate the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) a
new ground of rejection.
The claims are directed to a semiconductor device having a
heterojunction. Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative (subject matter in dispute
italicized):
1. A semiconductor device comprising a heterojunction,
compnsmg:
a first region comprising a first III-V semiconductor;
a second region adjacent to the first region and comprising
a second III-V semiconductor material, the second 111-V
semiconductor material comprising a material of graded
concentration over a width of the second region, wherein the
material of graded concentration comprises a minimum
concentration at [a] junction of the first 111-V semiconductor and
the second 111-V semiconductor; and
a third region adjacent to the second region and
comprising a third III-V semiconductor material, the material of
graded concentration comprising a maximum concentration at
3 Nguyen et al., US 2003/0032253 Al, published February 13, 2003
("Nguyen '253").
4 Nguyen et al., US 5,606,185, issued February 25, 1997 ("Nguyen '185").
5 Moon, US 4,195,305, issued March 25, 1980.
6 Van Zeghbroeck, Principles of Electronic Devices 1996.
2
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
[a] junction of the second 111-V semiconductor and the third 111-
V semiconductor, wherein the graded concentration is selected to
provide substantially no conduction band discontinuity at a
junction of the second region and the third region, or to provide
a type I semiconductor junction at the junction of the second
region and the third region.
8. A double heterojunction bipolar transistor (DHBT),
compnsmg:
a first region comprising a first III-V semiconductor;
a second region forming a first heterojunction with the
first region and comprising AlxGa1-xAsSb wherein the
concentration of Al is a graded concentration over a width of the
second region; and
a third region forming a second heterojunction with the
second region and comprising a second III-V semiconductor,
wherein the graded concentration is select[ ed] to provide
substantially no conduction hand discontinuity at a junction of
the second region and the third region, or to provide a type I
semiconductor junction at the junction of the second region and
the third region ..
Claims App;x at App. Br. 16, 17.
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of dependent
claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9--13, 15, and 16. App. Br. 7-8, 13. In accordance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 will stand or fall
together with claim 1 and claims 9-13, 15, and 16 will stand or fall together
with claim 8.
OPINION
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Nguyen '253 teaches the
recited first, second, and third regions comprising III-V semiconductor
material and that the second region has a graded concentration having a
minimum concentration at one junction and a maximum concentration at the
3
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
other junction. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Nguyen '253 Fig. 6, il 37). The
Examiner specifically identifies regions 12a, 13, and 14 in Figure 6 of
Nguyen '253 as the required first, second, and third regions of claim 1,
respectively. Id. at 2. The Examiner also finds that the minimum
concentration of region 13 is at the junction with the first III-V
semiconductor material and the maximum concentration of region 13 is at
the junction with the third III-V semiconductor material. Id. at 2-3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is in error
because "there is no description of a grading concentration that comprises a
minimum concentration at junction of the first III-V semiconductor and the
second III-V semiconductor, or grading concentration that comprises a
maximum concentration at junction of the second III-V semiconductor and
the third III-V semiconductor as specifically recited in claim 1." App. Br. 7
(emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that in Nguyen '253 's double heterojunction
bipolar transistor device shown in Figure 6,
Layer 13 is a graded quaternary compound formed by
continuously varying they-parameter In(Po.69Sbo.31)yAs1-yfrom 0
at the interface with layer 14 to 1 at the interface with layer 12a
(see Nguyen: paragraph 0037). As the chemical formula shows,
the concentration of As will have a minimum [sic, maximum] at
this junction of the first 12a and the second 13 III-V
semiconductors, and the concentration of As will have a
minimum at this junction of the second 13 and third 14
semi conductors.
Ans. 3. Figure 6 is shown below:
4
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
Figure 6 depicts a Sb-based double heterojunction bipolar transistor.
Nguyen '253 i-f 13.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that "there is no disclosure of a
maximum concentration at junction of the second III-V semiconductor and
the third III-V semiconductor, but rather at the junction of the first and third
[sic, second] semiconductors, by the Examiner's analysis." Reply Br. 6-7
(emphasis omitted).
Appellant acknowledges that Nguyen's second region 13 is a material
of graded concentration having a minimum at one junction and a maximum
at the other junction. We agree with Appellant that paragraph 37 of Nguyen
'253 describes the minimum concentration of the graded quaternary
compound of region 13 as being at the junction of regions 13 and 12a and
the maximum at the junction of regions 13 and 14. Reply Br. 6; Nguyen
'253 i-f 37. Appellant does not dispute that each ofNguyen '253's regions
12a, 13, and 14 identified by the Examiner comprise a III-V semiconductor
as required by claim 1. Based on the Examiner's findings that Nguyen '253
teaches (1) a double heterojunction bipolar transistor having three regions
comprising III-V semiconductor material, (2) two junctions between the
three regions, and (3) a second region between the first and third regions
5
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
having a graded concentration with a maximum at one junction and a
minimum at the other junction, and the fact that claim 1 requires only that
the location of the minimum and maximum concentrations are relative to the
location of the three regions, we find that claim 1 is anticipated by Nguyen
'253 where region 14 corresponds to the first region recited in claim 1,
region 13 corresponds to the second region recited in claim 1, and region
12a corresponds to the third region recited in claim 1.
Because we recognize our decision is based in part on reasoning
which differs from that advanced by the Examiner, we denominate the
affirmed rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as a
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claim 8
Appellant contends that the Examiner's rejection of claims 8-13, 15,
and 16 over Nguyen '185 and Moon is in error because "Moon fails to
disclose grading of an aluminum concentration in AlxGa1_xAsSb over a width
of a region of a DHBT. Moreover, while Moon discloses growth of
mismatched layers of GaAsSb through substitutional Al, the reference fails
to disclose grading of an aluminum concentration in AlxGa1_xAsSb over a
width of a region of a DHBT as specifically recited in claim 8." App. Br.
11-12 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further asserts that the substitution of
Al for Ga in Moon is not a disclosure of "variant Al concentration." Id. at
12 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner responds that Nguyen '185 discloses a graded
semiconductor layer formed between III-V semiconductor layers, but fails to
teach that the graded layer is an AlGaAsSb alloy layer. Ans. 4 (citing
Nguyen' 185 4:45-66, Fig. 4). The Examiner also finds that Moon teaches
6
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
AlGaAsSb as a quaternary alloy system for use in heterojunction devices
and gradually varying lattice constant to match unequal lattice constants of
differing materials. Id. (citing Moon 1: 15-20). The Examiner further finds
"Moon teaches that grading aluminum AlGaAsSb layer would allow a lattice
grading between two unequal lattice constants layers to have reproducible
control of the lattice constant and band gap energy of the AlGaAsSb layer,
thereby controlling the efficiency of the device[.]" Id. at 5 (citing Moon
1: 14, 2: 1-7). The Examiner also finds that the grading layers in Nguyen
'185 and Moon "serve the same function in the respective devices" therefore
substitution would have yielded predictable results. Id.
The Appellant responds that "there is no disclosure of grading of
aluminum in the captioned portion of Moon; and [Moon's] disclosure of
intermediate transition layer is unclear." Reply Br. 9. Appellant also asserts
that the Examiner has failed to provide an articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the obviousness rejection of claim 8. Id.
The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding
that Nguyen' 185 teaches a graded semiconductor layer between III-V
semiconductor layers and that Moon teaches advantages for using an
AlGaAsSb alloy layer where "the Al constituent of an epitaxial layer of
AlGaAsSb is varied" and lattice grading of the layer is obtained. Moon 2:1-
2. Therefore, Appellant has not persuaded us of a reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 8 over Nguyen '185 and Moon.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections.
7
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
DECISION
For the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 1-3 and 6-16. Because we recognize our decision is based in
part on reasoning which differs from that advanced by the Examiner, we
denominate the affirmed rejection of claims 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b).
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
8
Appeal2015-004479
Application 12/415, 139
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED/NEW GROUND OF REJECTION (37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b))
9