Ex Parte Dargis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 24, 201613278952 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/278,952 10/21/2011 29370 7590 ROBERT A, PARSONS 15615 North 71st Street Suite 106 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 06/28/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR R ytis Dargis 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. 4573-A38 1567 EXAMINER AHMAD, KHAJA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2813 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2016 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): rp@pgpct.com ms@pgpct.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RYTIS DARGIS, ERDEM ARKUN, RADEK ROUCKA, ANDREW CLARK, and MICHAEL LEBBY Appeal2014-005473 Application 13/278,952 1 Technology Center 2800 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGE C. BEST, and CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 5-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Translucent Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005473 Application 13/278,952 Appellants' invention relates to a method of fabricating a rare earth oxide buffered III-N on silicon wafer. (Spec. 1 ). Independent claim 6 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below: 6. A method of fabricating a rare earth oxide buffered III-N on silicon wafer comprising the steps of: providing a crystalline silicon substrate; depositing a rare earth oxide structure on the silicon substrate including one or more layers of single crystal rare earth oxide; depositing a layer of single crystal III-N material on the rare earth oxide structure so as to form an interface between the rare earth oxide structure and the layer of single crystal III-N material, the layer of single crystal HI- N material producing a tensile stress at the interface and the rare earth oxide structure having a compressive stress at the interface dependent upon a thickness of the rare earth oxide structure; and growing the thickness of the rare earth oxide structure to provide a compressive stress offsetting at least a portion of the tensile stress at the interface to substantially reduce bowing in the wafer. The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Clark et al. (US 2010/0109047 Al published May 6, 2010) in view of Wallis (US 2006/0145186 Al published Jul. 6, 2006), Sakong et al. (US 2010/0155699 Al published Jun. 24, 2010) and Zaidi (US 2003/0168002 Al published Sep. 11, 2003) (Final Act 2-9; Ans. 2). 2 Appeal2014-005473 Application 13/278,952 OPINION2 We refer to the Examiner's Final Action for a complete statement of the rejection. (Final Act. 2-9). We have reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of representative independent claim 6. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially the reasons expressed in the Final Action, Advisory Action, and Answer, and we add the following for emphasis. The Examiner found Clark teaches a method of fabricating a rare earth oxide (REO) buffered III-IV or II-VI material on a silicon wafer that differs from the claimed invention in that a single layer of III-N is not disclosed as deposited on the REO structure. (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner found Wallis teaches that Gallium nitride materials are semiconductor compounds having a number of attractive properties making them useful in many microelectronic applications such as optoelectronics (Abstract, [0002] and [0019]). The Examiner found Clark recognized the importance of reducing/the regulating the stress of the REO silicon composite layer. (Final Act. 5; Clark, [0046]). The Examiner found Sakong teaches a correlation between tensile stress and the thickness of the GaN layer, and Zaidi teaches lattice mismatch and thermal expansion coefficient difference between layers creates bowing in a Si substrate/wafer due to 2 Appellants rely on substantially the same arguments for independent claims 6 and 10. (App. Br. generally). Appellants have not presented separate arguments for claims 5, 7-9, and 11. We select independent claim 6 as representative of the subject matter on appeal. 3 Appeal2014-005473 Application 13/278,952 imbalance of stress. (Final Act. 5; Sakong, [0030]; Zaidi, [0004] and [0009]). The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to fabricate a silicon wafer comprising rare earth oxide buffered layer and GaN layer, that has tensile stress, and growing the thickness of the rare earth oxide structure to provide compressive stress offsetting of at least a portion of the tensile stress at the interface to substantially reduce deformation (bowing). (Final Act. 5). Appellants argue to remove the stress by gradually changing from a silicon lattice to a GaN lattice would require a large number of layers of different materials and Wallis exhibits it would be extremely difficult. (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants further argue any modification or deviation from a structure that comprises Group IIIB nitrides would render the Wallis invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. (App. Br. 8). Clark utilizes a buffer layer between Ge and a silicon substrate; similarly, Wallis utilizes a buffer layer between GaN and a silicon substrate. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected GaN would have been suitable for replacing Ge with in the method of Clark. Appellants (App. Br. 8-11) have provided several arguments that attacked the references individually and these arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the rejection including the evidence provided by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellants argue that Clark's Figure 5 exhibits the complexity of forming a REO lattice match Ge to Si and is evidence of unexpected results for Appellants' novel concept. (App. Br. 10-11). Appellants' argument is unavailing. Contrary to Appellants' argument Clark is evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would 4 Appeal2014-005473 Application 13/278,952 have recognized the considerations necessary to create a lattice match between Si and other layers. The prior art cited by the Examiner establishes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the conditions necessary for creating a REO to lattice match GaN to Si. It is further noted that Appellants have acknowledged that it would have been obvious to use GaN instead of Ge on a rare earth buffer layer on a silicon substrate. Appellants specifically state: Appellants have never claimed or contend that it would be unobvious to use GaN instead of Ge on a rare earth buffer layer on a silicon substrate. However, appellants have stated that "III-N materials are a desirable semiconductor material in many electronic and photonic applications" and that "efforts to grow III-Non silicon wafers have resulted in substantially bowed wafers due to tensile strain in the III-N material." (See appellants' spec, page 1) Further, there is no burden on appellants "to establish results are unexpected and significant". Appellants have disclosed a significant improvement over the prior art. That improvement is unobvious and therefore patentable. (Reply Br. 7). Appellants' claims are not limited to an improvement over the prior art contrary to Appellants' argument. The claimed invention only requires growing the thickness of the rare earth oxide structure to provide a compressive stress offsetting at least a portion of the tensile stress at the interface to substantially reduce bowing. The prior art cited by the Examiner establishes that the bowing problem is recognized and the techniques for alleviating such are known. For the foregoing reasons and those presented by the Examiner we sustain the appealed rejection. 5 Appeal2014-005473 Application 13/278,952 ORDER The Examiner's rejection of claims 5-11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. TIME PERIOD 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). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation