Ex Parte Konstantinov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 12, 201512042614 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 12, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREI KONSTANTINOV, CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, and JAN-OLOV SVEDERG ____________ Appeal 2012-011962 Application 12/042,6141 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and KIMBERLY J. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 15–17, 19–21, 23–26, 31, and 33–35. Ans. 2 citing November 25, 2011 Final Act.; May 15, 2012 Advisory Act.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cree Inc., Durham, North Carolina. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 1–14, 22, and 27–30 are cancelled. Ans. 2; App. Br. 13–15 (Claim App’x). Claims 18 and 32 are objected to. November 25, 2011 Final Act. Appeal 2012-011962 Application 12/042,614 2 BACKGROUND Claims 15, 21, and 24 are the only independent claims on appeal. Claim 15 is the focus of Appellants’ brief and is reproduced below: 15. A junction barrier Schottky diode comprising: a drift layer on a first surface of a substrate; a channel layer on the drift layer, the drift layer and the channel layer are silicon carbide and have a first conductivity type, a dopant concentration of the channel layer is at least twice a dopant concentration of the drift layer; implant regions extending from a surface of the channel layer into the channel layer, the implant regions have a second conductivity type opposite the first conductivity type and are disposed in a grid-like pattern with a distance there between in a range of about 0.5 μm to 0.7 μm; a first metal on a second surface of the substrate that is opposite the first surface; and a second metal over the implant regions and the channel layer. Appeal Br. 13 (Claim App’x) (disputed limitations in italics). THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL R1. Claims 15–17, 19, 20, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korec et al. (US 2002/0125541 A1, published Sept. 12, 2002)(“Korec”) in view of Ryu et al. (US 2006/0255423 A1, published Nov. 16, 2006) (“Ryu”). Ans. 2, 4; May 15, 2012 Advisory Action; Nov. 25, 2011 Final Act. at 7– 8. R2: Claims 21, 23–26, and 33–35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Korec. Ans. 2; May 15, 2012 Advisory Action; Nov. 25, 2011 Final Act. at 3–6. Appeal 2012-011962 Application 12/042,614 3 ANALYSIS We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 15–17, 19– 21, 23–26, 31, and 33–35 for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, including the Response to Argument section, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants’ main argument is that Korec discloses implant regions separated by less than 0.7 μm in silicon not in silicon carbide as required by independent claim 15.3 App. Br. 3–12. Appellants’ arguments that it would not have been obvious to modify Korec’s silicon diode to arrive at the claimed invention are unavailing as Appellants fail to address the full scope of the Examiner’s findings. In particular, the Examiner found that Korec also teaches a junction barrier Schottky diode fabricated in silicon carbide wherein the distance between P-type implant regions is less than 0.8 μm and is thus close to the upper limit of the Appellant’s claimed range of up to about 0.7 μm. Ans. 2– 3 citing Korec ¶¶ 22, 49, Fig. 6. The Examiner further found that the distance between the channel width of Korec (less than 0.8 μm) and the claimed range (up to about 0.7 μm) is an obvious difference that is within 3 Claims 21 and 24 similarly recite “a channel layer on the drift layer,” the channel layer and the drift layer “are silicon carbide” and “implant regions extending from a surface of the channel layer into the channel layer,” “wherein the implant regions are separated from each other by a channel width less than about 0.7 μm.” Appeal 2012-011962 Application 12/042,614 4 the grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 3. The Examiner further found that Korec teaches that channel width is a result effective variable that advantageously improves diode performance for narrower channel widths. Ans. 3, citing Korec ¶ 46. The Examiner further found that the Appellants did not provide any evidence to establish the criticality for the Appellants’ claimed range. Ans. 3. Appellants have not provided persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings are in error. Likewise, Appellants’ argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to use similar fabrication processes for silicon carbide and silicon is unavailing as it fails to address the Examiner’s findings and analysis. The Examiner found that Korec expressly teaches that the disclosed process for forming a silicon-based junction barrier Schottky diode can be easily adapted for silicon carbide. Ans. 4, citing Korec ¶ 52 (stating “the process is described for N-type silicon . . . can be easily adapted for silicon carbide”). Appellants have not provided persuasive technical reasoning or evidence that the Examiner’s factual finding is in error. As Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. With respect to independent claims 21 and 24, Appellants merely reassert the same arguments as set forth for claim 15. See App. Br. 10–11. As explained above, these arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21 and 24. As Appellants have not provided additional arguments as to the patentability of dependent claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, or 31, 33–35, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. Appeal 2012-011962 Application 12/042,614 5 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15–17, 19–21, 23–26, 31, and 33–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation