Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 23, 2020

2020000758 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2020)

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. 15/131,230 04/18/2016 Tetsuo TAKAHASHI 004700-ME0146 8129 78198 7590 11/23/2020 Studebaker & Brackett PC 8255 Greensboro Drive Suite 300 Tysons, VA 22102 EXAMINER DYKES, LAURA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/23/2020 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): info@sbpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TETSUO TAKAHASHI Appeal 2020-000758 Application 15/131,230 Technology Center 2800 Before DONNA M. PRAISS, LILAN REN, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 4–6. See Final Act. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Mitsubishi Electric Corporation of Tokyo, Japan.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000758 Application 15/131,230 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims seek “to provide a semiconductor device of reduced size, yet having an adequately high breakdown voltage.” Spec. 1:26–28. Claim 4, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 4. A semiconductor device comprising: a semiconductor substrate having a principal surface; a first impurity region of a first conductivity type formed in said semiconductor substrate; a base layer of a second conductivity type formed in said semiconductor substrate and along said principal surface; a RESURF layer of said second conductivity type formed in said semiconductor substrate and along said principal surface; a well layer of said second conductivity type formed in direct contact with said base layer and adjacent to said RESURF layer along said principal surface; a concentration gradient reducing section formed in the portion of said well layer adjacent to said RESURF layer in such a manner that the impurity concentration gradient of said second conductivity type between said well layer and said RESURF layer is reduced; and a gate wire formed directly above said concentration gradient reducing section. Appeal Br. 7 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hiyoshi US 2003/0006497 A1 Jan. 9, 2003 Takahashi US 2010/0252904 A1 Oct. 7, 2010 Appeal 2020-000758 Application 15/131,230 3 REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 4–6 under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hiyoshi in view of Takahashi. Final Act. 3. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 2010 WL 889747, *4 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant has identified reversible error. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Hiyoshi teaches or suggests “a concentration gradient reducing section” as recited in claim 4.2 Appeal Br. 4. Appellant acknowledges that Hiyoshi discloses first diffusion layer 32 which “has an impurity concentration of 1x1017 to 1x1018 cm-3” but argues that Hiyoshi “does not disclose that this impurity concentration changes throughout first diffusion layer 32.” Id. First and foremost, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language which does not 2 Appellant argues for the rejection of claims 4–6 as a group with claim 4 being the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 3–6. Thus, the claims stand or fall together. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-000758 Application 15/131,230 4 require the impurity concentration of the recited “concentration gradient reducing section” to change throughout the layer. As written description support for this particular claim element, Appellant cites only “page 20, lines 23 and 24 of the present specification” (as well as Figure 19) (Appeal Br. 3) which states no more than “[a] concentration gradient reducing section 92 [as illustrated in Fig. 19] is formed in the portion of the p-well layer 22 adjacent the RESURF layer 52.” Spec. 20:23–24. Appellant’s argument that the claimed “concentration gradient reducing section” requires the impurity concentration to change throughout the diffusion layer (Appeal Br. 4) is therefore unsupported by the Specification. Moreover, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive as it does not structurally distinguish the prior art component from the recited “concentration gradient reducing section.” Appellant next argues that the Examiner erred by relying on a single structure, namely Hiyoshi’s first diffusion layer 32, for both the “well layer” and the “concentration gradient reducing section” recited in claim 4. Appeal Br. 4–5. We are not persuaded because Appellant’s argument does not address the Examiner’s finding that regions R2 and R3 in Hiyoshi teach or suggest the recited “concentration gradient reducing section” and that Hiyoshi’s component 32 teaches or suggests the recited “well layer.” Compare id., with Final Act. 4. The Examiner additionally finds that at least Hiyoshi’s paragraphs 50, 51, and 62 describing the prior art components including layer 32 as well as regions R2 and R3 teaches or suggests the claim elements at issue. Final Act. 4, 9. Appellant does not address these teachings. Appeal Br. 4–5. Moreover, Appellant does not address adequately the Examiner’s assertion that the concentration gradient reducing section is part of the well Appeal 2020-000758 Application 15/131,230 5 layer, as disclosed by Hiyoshi’s disclosure in paragraph 51. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5; Reply Br. 3. Therefore, Appellant does not identify error in the Examiner’s fact findings. Appellant lastly argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Hiyoshi and Takahashi “would be undesirable because such a modification would adversely affect the electrical properties of the first diffusion layer in an operation region (R2) of Hiyoshi’s device.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not have modified the prior art teachings as proposed by the Examiner. Id. In support of the rejection, the Examiner provides a rationale for combining the prior art. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Takahashi ¶ 104 and stating, for example, that a skilled artisan would have combined the prior art “to achieve effective relaxation of the electric field concentration between the p- well and RESURF layer”). Appellant’s arguments do not address and therefore do not challenge the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references. Compare Appeal Br. 5, with Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner provides an “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” and this “articulated reasoning” is supported by evidence in the record. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Appellant has not identified reversible error. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments regarding the modified prior art are not supported by objective evidence. “Attorneys’ argument is no substitute for evidence.” Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. Appeal 2020-000758 Application 15/131,230 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 4–6 103(a) Hiyoshi, Takahashi 4–6 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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