Ex Parte Bridger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 17, 2011

11004146 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 17, 2011)

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.
11/004,146 12/03/2004 Paul Bridger 0400104 1934
25700 7590 03/18/2011
FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
EXAMINER
PHAM, THANH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PAUL BRIDGER
_____________

Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, THOMAS S. HAHN,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 4-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellant’s Figure 1D is reproduced below:

Appellant’s Figure 1D and claimed invention are directed to a
technique and resultant structure for isolating semiconductor devices (20,
21) constructed on a single substrate or semiconductor die (layer 14). In
particular, a III-nitride semiconductor device can be isolated by masking or
protecting the device and applying an electro-chemical or photo-
electrochemical (PEC) dopant selective etch.
The semiconductor material surrounding the device (20, 21) is
modified from P-type to N-type, or vice versa, through an ion implantation
process. Once the surrounding semiconductor material is modified, it can be
selectively removed by application of an etch process, thereby creating voids
(30-33) which isolate the semiconductor devices (20, 21). The selective etch
produces smooth material profiles with little or no crystal damage when
compared with plasma etch techniques. See Spec. [0015]-[0016], [0043].
Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146

3
Claim 4, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphases added):
4. An isolation structure for a III-nitride device, comprising:
a base layer having insulative properties and a planar surface;
a first III-nitride layer overlying the planar surface of the base layer;
a second III-nitride conductive layer overlying the planar surface of
the base layer and disposed lateral to the first III-nitride layer;
a III-nitride semiconductor device atop the second III-nitride
conductive layer; and
an isolation void disposed between the first III-nitride layer and the
second III-nitride conductive layer; a portion of the planar surface under the
first III-nitride layer and the second III-nitride conductive layer comprising a
bottom of the isolation void, wherein the void is formed using a dopant
selective etch, and wherein the base layer is comprised of a material selected
from a group consisting of GaN, Si, SiC, and Sapphire.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Droopad US 6,673,646 B2 Jan. 6, 2004
Gon Namkoong et al., Low Temperature Nitridation Combined with
High Temperature Buffer Annealing for High Quality GaN Grown by
Plasma-Assisted MBE, 5 MRS INTERNET J. NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR
RES. 1 (2000).
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Droopad in view of Namkoong.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether Droopad teaches or suggests the
limitations of:
Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146

4
a first III-nitride layer overlying the planar surface of the
base layer;
a second III-nitride conductive layer overlying the planar
surface of the base layer and disposed lateral to the first III-
nitride layer;
. . . and
an isolation void disposed between the first III-nitride
layer and the second III-nitride conductive layer; a portion of
the planar surface under the first III-nitride layer and the
second III-nitride conductive layer comprising a bottom of the
isolation void.
as recited in independent claim 4 (emphases added).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as
their terms reasonably allow since Appellant has the ability during the
administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

ANALYSIS
Appellant first argues (App. Br. 3) that Droopad does not show a first
III-nitride layer and a second III-nitride conductive layer overlying the
planar surface of a base layer. Appellant explains (App. Br. 3) that in
Droopad regions 106 are disposed on mesas each extending above a plane,
and thus, regions 106 do not overlie a planar surface.
The Examiner (Ans. 7) in response provided the following modified
Figure 10 of Droopad identifying the first and second III-nitride layers (i.e.,
two adjacent layers 106), the base layer (i.e., layer 104), and the planar
Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146

5
surface (i.e., bottom planar surface laying under layer 104) according to the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language.

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We agree with
Appellant that the first and second III-nitride layers 106 of Figure 10, as
identified by the Examiner, are on top of the base layer (i.e., mesas 104)
extending above the identified planar surface. However, the claim does not
preclude such an interpretation, because the claim only requires that the first
and second III-nitride layers 106 overlay a planar surface of the base layer,
which the Examiner identified as the bottom planar surface of base layer 104
(as opposed to the top planar surface of the base layer 104). In other words,
the III-nitride layers 106 still overlay the bottom layer of base layer 104,
even if they are on top of the intervening 104 mesa structure. The claim is
silent as to the first and second III-nitride layers 106 directly contacting the
top planar surface of the base layer.
Appellant further argues that Droopad does not teach or suggest that a
portion of the planar surface of the base layer that extends2 under the first

2 While we understand that “extends” may be what Appellant meant to be in
claim 4, as presented in the argument, we note that this terminology is
Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146

6
and second III-nitride layers comprises the bottom of the isolation void.
Appellant explains that Droopad does not show a portion of a planar surface
extending under regions 106 and constituting a bottom of a void.
In response, the Examiner provided the following modified Figure 10
of Droopad identifying the first and second III-nitride layers (i.e., two
adjacent layers 106) and the isolation void (i.e., darkened area between the
first and second III-nitride layers 106 and base layer 104) according to the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language. The Examiner also cited
Droopad’s teaching of creating voids by etching back unmasked areas
between the oxide mesas (col. 14, ll. 11-13).

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that the darkened area of the modified Figure 10 is an isolation
void formed by etching back unmasked areas between the oxide mesas (col.
14, ll. 11-13; see also col. 15, ll. 22-28 (describing complete removal of the
oxide layer and only as optional the deposition of layer 106 in the isolation
void)). The claim does not require that the planar surface be exposed, but

missing from the claim. If there is further prosecution in the case, such
language should be included in the claim to avoid confusion.
Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146

7
rather that the isolation void (i.e., entire dark area as indicated by Examiner)
is disposed between the first and the second III-nitride layers (i.e., first and
second layers 106) and that a portion of the planar surface extends between
the two III-nitride layers comprising a bottom of the isolation void (i.e.,
indicated as the bottom of the isolation void extending between the first and
second nitride layer).
Thus, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 4
and claims 5 and 6, which fall with claim 4 as no additional arguments of
patentability were presented with respect to these claims.

CONCLUSION
Droopad teaches the claim 4 limitations of (emphases added):
a first III-nitride layer overlying the planar surface of the
base layer;
a second III-nitride conductive layer overlying the planar
surface of the base layer and disposed lateral to the first III-
nitride layer;
. . . and
an isolation void disposed between the first III-nitride
layer and the second III-nitride conductive layer; a portion of
the planar surface under the first III-nitride layer and the
second III-nitride conductive layer comprising a bottom of the
isolation void.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 4-6 is affirmed.
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)(v).

Appeal 2009-011223
Application 11/004,146

8
AFFIRMED

babc

FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA AVENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691