Ex Parte Das et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

13835342 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/835,342 03/15/2013
65106 7590
MYERS BIGEL, P.A.
P.O. BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
08/13/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mrinal Kanti Das
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.
5308-1790 4369
EXAMINER
MARUF, SHEIKH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2828
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 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):
uspto@myersbigel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MRINAL KANTI DAS and DOYLE CRAIG CAPELL
Appeal2017-008992
Application 13/835,342
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13 and 15. 3 We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed March 15, 2013, the
Examiner's Final Office Action (Final) dated June 16, 2016, Appellant's
Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed January 13, 2017, the Examiner's Answer
(Ans.) dated April 6, 2017, and Appellant's Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
June 6, 2017.
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Cree Inc., which is identified in the Appeal
Brief as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 1 ).
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 28-37 (Ans. 3).
Appeal2017-008992
Application 13/835,342
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to microelectronic devices including a drift
region having a first conductivity type and a grid comprising a plurality of
doped regions formed in the drift region and having a second conductivity
type (Spec. ,r,r 1 and 9). The Inventors disclose that the dopant
concentration of the doped regions "does not fall below approximately 2.0 x
1019 cm-3 until reaching a depth of approximately 3000 A" (id. ,r 59).
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitation at issue
is italicized.
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a drift region having a first conductivity type; and
a grid comprising a plurality of doped regions formed in
the drift region and having a second conductivity type;
wherein the doped regions have a dopant concentration of
at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 to a depth of 3000 A; and
wherein the dopant comprises aluminum ions.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1-11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §I02(e) as anticipated by
Kameshiro; 4 and
4 Kameshiro et al., US 2013/0105819 Al, published May 2, 2013
("Kameshiro").
2
Appeal2017-008992
Application 13/835,342
2. Claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Kameshiro in view of Hshieh. 5,6
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue before us on appeal is whether Appellant has
identified reversible error in the Examiner's finding that Kameshiro teaches
a dopant concentration "of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 to a depth of3000 A" as
recited in claim 1. For the reasons given below and as argued in the Appeal
and Reply Briefs, we answer this question in the affirmative and reverse the
Examiner's anticipation rejection based on Kameshiro. As the remaining
obviousness rejection relies on the above finding regarding Kameshiro as
evidence that the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, we also reverse the obviousness rejection over
Kameshiro in view of Hshieh.
A central issue in this appeal is the proper construction of the
limitation "a dopant concentration of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 to a depth of
3000 A" as recited in claim 1. See Amazon.com, Inc. v.
Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("Only
when a claim is properly understood can a determination be made ...
whether the prior art anticipates and/or renders obvious the claimed
5 Hshieh et al., US 2006/0237813 Al, published October 26, 2006
("Hshieh").
6 The Examiner mentions Mizukami (US 2012/0223333 Al, published
September 6, 2012) in the body of this rejection, but does not include this
reference in the statement of the rejection (Final 5---6). In re Hoch, 428 F.2d
1341, 1342 n.3 (CCPA 1970) ("Where a reference is relied on to support a
rejection, ... there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including
the reference in the statement of rejection.").
3
Appeal2017-008992
Application 13/835,342
invention."). The Examiner takes the position that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of this limitation is that the doping regions have a dopant
concentration of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 and the doping regions are doped to
a depth of 3000 A (see Final 3; Ans. 5). On the other hand, Appellant's
position is that this limitation should be interpreted such that the doping
regions have a dopant concentration profile of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 all the
way to a depth of 3000 A (see Appeal Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2).
During examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as they would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re ICON Health & Fitness,
Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In general, words used in a
claim are accorded their ordinary and customary meaning given to the term
by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Honeywell
Int'! Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 488 F.3d 982, 992 (Fed. Cir.
2007); In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Sneed,
710 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The ordinary and customary meaning
of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, most prominently, the
words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, viewed from the
perspective of the person having ordinary skill in the art; in the absence of a
definition provided by the applicant, the prior art is also consulted. Phillips
v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Having considered the respective interpretations of the Examiner and
Appellants, we find the broadest reasonable interpretation is, consistent with
Appellant's position, that the doping regions have a doping concentration
profile of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 all the way to a depth of at least 3000 A.
4
Appeal2017-008992
Application 13/835,342
This limitation, as recited in claim 1, uses the operative term, "to," which
according to Appellant functions to indicate a limit or extent (Reply Br. 2).
We find that the definition of "to" is that it is a function word that can serve
a variety of different purposes including as an indication of movement,
direction, contact, limit, extent, relative position, purpose, intention,
tendency, result, proportion, etc. 7 We first note that, though "to" is a
function word that has a variety of different purposes, none of those
purposes is as a coordinating conjunction as the Examiner's position
requires. In addition, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood, in light of Appellant's Specification, that "to" as used in the
limitation in question in claim 1 is a function word indicating a limit or
extent. Thus, the broadest reasonable construction of the limitation in
question is, as Appellant contends, the doping regions have a dopant
concentration profile of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 all the way to a depth of
3000 A.
This construction is consistent with Appellant's Specification,
paragraph 59, which discloses that "the dopant concentration according to
embodiments of the present inventive subject matter does not fall below
approximately 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 until reaching a depth of approximately
3000 A." Indeed, as shown in Figure 6, dopant profile 620 for a grid of the
present invention has at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 to a depth of 3000 A, whereas
dopant profile 610 for a conventional junction barrier Schottky grid has a
dopant concentration of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 to a depth less than 3000 A;
7 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/to, last accessed on July 27,
2018.
5
Appeal2017-008992
Application 13/835,342
at a depth of about 3000 A, the dopant concentration is only about 0.4 x 10-19
Turning next to the Examiner's finding of anticipation based on
Kameshiro, the Examiner finds Kameshiro teaches that the dopant
concentration is about 1018-1020 cm-3 and the junction depth is about 0.3-2.0
µm, wherein 0.3 µm equals 3000 A (Final 3; Ans. 4--5). The Examiner
further finds that 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 is within Kameshiro's disclosed range of
1018-1020 cm-3 and that at a depth of 0.3 µm, the dopant concentration could
be 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 (Final 3). In addition, the Examiner finds that
Kameshiro' s dopant concentration range and depth range meet the values
recited in claim 1 because the recited concentration value, 2.0 x 1019 cm-3, is
within Kameshiro 's concentration range, and the recited depth value is
included in Kameshiro's depth range (Ans. 4--5).
Appellant argues, consistent with the broadest reasonable construction
discussed above, that Kameshiro fails to teach the dopant concentration is at
least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 to a depth of 3000 A (Appeal Br. 4--7). Further,
although the Examiner finds that Kameshiro could have a concentration of at
least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 at or and a depth of 3000 A, Appellant argues that
anticipation requires the prior art teaching discloses that the dopant
concentration would necessarily have a dopant concentration of at least 2.0 x
1019 cm-3 to a depth of 3000 A (id. at 7-8).
Appellant's arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner's finding of anticipation by Kameshiro. We note that a dopant
concentration of at least 2. 0 x 1019 cm-3 to a depth of 3 000 A is not expressly
disclosed in Kameshiro, which only teaches a dopant concentration range of
1018-1020 and a depth range of 0.3-2.0 µm. As Appellant contends,
6
Appeal2017-008992
Application 13/835,342
Kameshiro' s only expressly disclosed dopant concentration profile has a
dopant concentration of 9 x 1018 cm-3 "close to the surface of the drift layer
and a junction depth of about 0.55---0.7 µm" (Kameshiro ,r 93). The
Examiner does not explain how this profile along with the broader dopant
concentration range and broader depth range teaches, either impliedly or
inherently, a dopant concentration profile of at least 2.0 x 1019 cm-3 to a
depth of 0.3 µm. An inherent characteristic must be inevitable, and not
merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581
(CCP A 1981 ). Furthermore, the fact that a recited parameter falls within a
broad range disclosed by a reference alone is insufficient to establish
anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 441 F.3d 991 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) ("an earlier species reference anticipates a later genus claim, not
that an earlier genus anticipates a narrower species"). Thus, Kameshiro's
disclosure of broad ranges of dopant concentrations and junction depths,
1018-1020 cm-3 and 0.3-2.0 µm, respectively, does not alone constitute a
specific disclosure of 2.0 x 1019 cm-3, much less a profile of at least 2.0 x
1019 cm-3 to a depth of 3000 A.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-13 and 15 is reversed.
REVERSED
7