Ex Parte Kaiser et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201310544306 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STEPHAN KAISER, VOLKER HARLE, and BERTHOLD HAHN ____________________ Appeal 2010-009437 1 Application 10/544,306 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Osram Opto Semiconductors GmbH. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2010-009437 Application 10/544,306 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-35. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appellants’ Invention Appellants invented a method for separating a semiconductor layer from a substrate by irradiating the substrate with laser pulses. (Spec. 1, ll. 5- 8.) In particular, the laser pulses have a Gaussian-like beam profile with a flank slope to prevent cracks in the semiconductor that may result from thermally induced lateral stresses during the separation. (Spec. 5, ll. 22-30.) Illustrative Claims Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows: 1. A method for producing a semiconductor component, in which a semiconductor layer is separated from a substrate by irradiation with laser pulses, a pulse duration of the laser pulses being less than or equal to 10 ns, wherein the laser pulses have a spatial beam profile with a flank slope configured to prevent cracks in the semiconductor layer that arise as a result of thermally induced lateral stresses during the separation of the semiconductor layer and the substrate. Appeal 2010-009437 Application 10/544,306 3 Dependent claim 2 further illustrates the invention as follows: 2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser pulses have a spatially Gaussian beam profile. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Cordingley US 5,300,756 Apr. 5, 1994 Kelly US 6,559,075 B1 May 6, 2003 W. S. Wong et al., InxGa1-xN Light Emitting Diodes on Si Substrates Fabricated by Pd-In Metal Bonding and Laser Lift-Off, Appl. Phys. Letters vol. 77, no. 18 pp. 2822-2824 Oct. 2000. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: 1. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, 19-23, 26, 27, and 30-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kelly and Cordingley. 2. Claims 4, 13, 14, 16-18, 24, 25, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Kelly, Cordingley, and Wong. Appeal 2010-009437 Application 10/544,306 4 ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in the principal Brief, pages 5-15, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-6. Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Kelly and Cordingley teaches or suggests irradiating the substrate of a semiconductor element with laser pulses having a spatial beam profile with a flank slope configured to prevent cracks in the semiconductor layer that may result from thermally induced stresses during its separation from the substrate, as recited claim 1? Appellants argue that neither Kelly nor Cordingley teaches or suggests the disputed limitations emphasized above. In particular, Appellants argue that Cordingley’s disclosure of using a more uniform beam profile than the Gaussian beam profile does not teach a flank slope configured to achieve the specific purpose of preventing cracks in the semiconductor layer as a result of thermally induced lateral stresses during its separation from the substrate. Thus, Appellants submit that Cordingley does not cure the noted deficiencies of Kelly. (App. Br. 9-10, 12, Reply Br. 2-5.) Further, Appellants argue that while Cordingley discloses utilizing a Gaussian beam profile to separate conductive links of cells from a matrix of a semiconductor memory chip, Cordingley indicates that the Gaussian beam can damage the chip, and instead recommends using a more uniform intensity profile on the chip to prevent cracks therein during the separation. Appeal 2010-009437 Application 10/544,306 5 Therefore, Appellants submit that Cordingley teaches away from using Gaussian beam profile, and that the proposed combination would not have a reasonable expectation of success. (App. Br. 9-11.) Consequently, Appellants submit that the proffered combination does not render claim 1 unpatentable. (Id.) In response, the Examiner finds that because Cordingley’s disclosure of modifying an ordinary Gaussian beam profile (40) to yield a phase plate (42) with a more uniform intensity profile to prevent cracks in the chip while separating links therefrom, the combination of Kelly and Cordingley teaches the disputed limitations. (Ans. 7-8.) On the record before us, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and ultimate conclusion of obviousness. In particular, Cordingley discloses using a phase-plate laser beam having a more uniform intensity profile than ordinary Gaussian beam profiles as a way to prevent causing damage to the chip during the heating process of severing conductive links from the semiconductor substrate thereof. (Col. 1, ll. 51-60.) Cordingley additionally discloses utilizing phase modulation, as opposed to amplitude modulation of ordinary Gaussian beams, to achieve a more uniform intensity profile on the chip without significant power loss, and without damaging the chip. (Id., Col. 2, ll. 25-29, col. 3, ll. 10-13.) Appeal 2010-009437 Application 10/544,306 6 Cordingley’s Figure 4 is reproduced below: Figure 4 is a cross-sectional view of the phase plate. Further, as depicted in Figure 4 above, while Cordingley’s modified phase plate (42) has a flank slope that is not as steep as that of ordinary Gaussian beams (40), we find that the modified phase plate is capable of severing conductive links from the semiconductor substrate of a chip without causing damage thereto as a result of thermal stress ensuing from the separation. Accordingly, we find that the flank slope of Cordingley’s disclosed phase plate is configured to prevent cracks in the chip during separation of links therefrom. We agree with Appellants that because Cordingley’s disclosure criticizes, discredits or discourages using ordinary Gaussian beam profiles in the separation of the links from the substrate, Cordingley teaches away from Appeal 2010-009437 Application 10/544,306 7 using Gaussian profiles. 2 However, because claim 1 does not require that the laser pulses have a spatially Gaussian beam profile, we find Appellants’ arguments to be incommensurate in scope with the claimed invention. We are satisfied that Cordingley’s disclosure of a beam having a flank slope that can prevent damage to the chip teaches the disputed limitations of claim 1. Because the Examiner’s response as set forth in the Answer has rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence Appellants’ arguments, we find that Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s conclusion that the proffered combination renders claim 1 unpatentable. Because Appellants argue claims 3-35 together with claim 1, claims 3-35 fall together therewith for the same reasons set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.37(c)(1)(vii). Regarding claim 2, as set forth above, we find persuasive Appellants’ argument that Cordingley’s disclosure teaches away from using laser pulses with a Gaussian beam profile to separate links from the semiconductor of a chip. It follows Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. 2 It has been held that “[w]hat the prior art teaches and whether it teaches toward or away from the claimed invention … is a determination of fact.†Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995.) “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.†In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994.) Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does not teach away from the use of a claimed method. See In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433, 438 (CCPA 1965.) Appeal 2010-009437 Application 10/544,306 8 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3-35 as set forth above. However, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. 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-IN-PART ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation