Ex Parte Xin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2013

11196856 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HUOPING XIN, XINGQUAN LIU, XIAOHONG SHI,
CHAN KYUNG CHOI, and JIN SOO SONG

________________

Appeal 2010-007494
Application 11/196,856
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 Appellants waived an oral hearing for this appeal scheduled for January 17,
2013.
Appeal 2010-007494
Application 11/196,856

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to high efficiency light emitting devices. See
Spec. ¶ [0001]. These devices include multiple layers, including a top n-
layer that is made highly conductive and has a very rough surface. See
Abstract.
Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added)
1. A high efficiency LED [light emitting diode] structure,
comprising:
a substrate;
a low-temperature nucleation layer that is on top of the
substrate;
a bottom n-type semiconductor layer on top of the low-
temperature nucleation layer;
an active layer on top of and in contact with the n-type
semiconductor layer;
a p-type semiconductor layer on top of the active layer;
an n++-tunneling layer on top of the p-type
semiconductor layer;
a top n-layer on top of the n++-tunneling layer that
enables light to exit through the top of the high efficiency LED
structure, wherein the top n-layer has a roughness greater than
0.25 nm; and
Appeal 2010-007494
Application 11/196,856

3
an electrode contact coupled to the top n-layer and
another electrode contact coupled to the bottom n-type
semiconductor layer.
12. The high efficiency LED structure of claim 11, where the
top n-layer has an electron concentration in the range of 2e18 to
1e20 cm-3 electrons.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 – 4, 6 – 23, and 25 – 38 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kneissl (US 6,515,308 B1; Feb.
4, 2003) and Ou (US 2005/0082562 A1; Apr. 21, 2005). Ans. 3 – 11.
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kneissl, Ou, and Scherer (US 2005/0285128 A1;
Dec. 29, 2005; filed Feb. 9, 2005). Ans. 8 – 9.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kneissl and
Ou teaches or suggests “wherein the top n-layer has a roughness greater than
0.25 nm” and “an electrode contact coupled to the top n-layer,” as recited in
claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kneissl and
Ou teaches or suggests “where the top n-layer has an electron concentration
in the range of 2e18 to 1e20 cm-3 electrons,” as recited in claim 12?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a number of layers, including a top n-layer, “wherein
the top n-layer has a roughness greater than 0.25 nm.” The Examiner finds
that Kneissl, which is directed to a nitride-based vertical-cavity surface-
Appeal 2010-007494
Application 11/196,856

4
emitting laser or light emitting diode with P-N tunnel junction current
injection, teaches or suggests most of the layers, including a top n-layer. See
Ans. 3 (citing Kneissl fig. 1). The Examiner finds that “Kneissl does not
disclose wherein the top n-layer has a roughness greater than 0.25 nm.” Ans.
4. Therefore, the Examiner relies on Ou, which is directed to a high
efficiency nitride based light emitting device, to teach or suggest the use of a
top n-layer with a roughness greater than 0.25 nm. See Ans. 4 (citing Ou
¶ [0033]). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Ou’s teaching of the use of a
rough surface to increase the brightness of the LED. See Ans. 4; see also Ou
¶ [0033] (“the rough surface of the present invention promotes the extraction
efficiency of the emitting light and hence increase the brightness of the
LED”).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because in Ou, “the rough N-
layer is separated from the P-type electrode 17 by a transparent conductive
oxide layer 49.” App. Br. 10; see also Ou fig. 6. However, the Examiner
correctly concludes that a broad but reasonable construction of “coupled”
includes “electrically coupled.” See Ans. 12. The Specification does not
clearly define the term “coupled” and Appellants do not provide evidence
that persuasively shows that “[w]hen claiming a semiconductor device, the
simple term coupling can not have the same meaning electronically coupled
as used in the electrical circuits.” App. Br. 10. Appellants’ assertions amount
to unsupported attorney argument, and therefore we give them little weight.
See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the
Examiner correctly finds that Ou depicts an electrode 16 in direct contact
with rough n-layer 122. See Ans. 11 (citing Ou Fig. 6); see also Ou ¶ [0028].
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kneissl and
Appeal 2010-007494
Application 11/196,856

5
Ou teaches or suggests “wherein the top n-layer has a roughness greater than
0.25 nm” and “an electrode contact coupled to the top n-layer,” as recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of claims 2 – 11, 13, 14, 16 – 30, 32, 33, and 35 – 38, which are
not argued separately. See App. Br. 10 – 11.
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 recites that “the top n-layer has an electron
concentration in the range of 2e18 to 1e20 cm-3 electrons.” Appellants argue
that the claimed range produces unexpected results. See App. Br. 11 – 12.
However, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Ou
discloses an electron concentration of more than 1e19 cm-3, which overlaps
and thus reads on the claimed range. See Ans. 12 (citing Ou ¶ [0027]).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kneissl and
Ou teaches or suggests “where the top n-layer has an electron concentration
in the range of 2e18 to 1e20 cm-3 electrons,” as recited in claim 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 12, as well as the rejection of
claims 15, 31, and 34, which are not argued separately. See App. Br. 12 –
13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 38.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2010-007494
Application 11/196,856

6

tj