Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 22, 2016

13259444 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/259,444 09/23/2011 Jingjing Li
56436 7590 04/26/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82853066 8909
EXAMINER
SHAMSUZZAMAN, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/26/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JING JING LI, DAVID A. F ATTAL, LARS HELGE THYLEN,
MICHAEL RENNE TY TAN, and SHIH-YUAN WANG
Appeal2014--005682
Application 13/259 ,444
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 16.2 We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention (emphasis added):
1. A light-emitting diode comprising:
a plurality of portions comprising:
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP (App. Br. 2).
2 Claims 5-15 were withdrawn subject to a restriction requirement (Final
Rej. 1, 7, 11).
Appeal2014--005682
Application 13/259,444
a p----doped portion of a semiconductor, an intrinsic
portion of said semiconductor, and a n---doped portion of said
semiconductor, said intrinsic portion disposed between said p---
doped portion and said n---doped portion and forming a p---i
junction with said p---doped portion and an i-n junction with
said n-doped portion; and
a metal-dielectric-metal structure comprising:
a first metal layer;
a second metal layer; and
a dielectric medium disposed between said first metal
layer and said second metal layer;
wherein metal layers of said metal-dielectric-metal structure
are disposed about orthogonally to said p-i junction and said i-
n junction, said dielectric medium comprises said intrinsic
portion, and said metal-dielectric-metal structure is configured
to enhance modulation frequency of said light-emitting diode
through interaction with surface plasmons that are present in
said first metal layer and said second metal layer.
At the outset, we note that the Examiner finally rejected claims 1--4 on
the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims
1---6 of Cho (U.S. Patent 8,129,710, issued Mar. 6, 2012) (Final Rej. 2-5).
Appellants do not present any arguments traversing this double-patenting
rejection (Br. 5---6 and generally). Accordingly, this rejection is summarily
affirmed.
The Examiner also maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejections of
claims 1and2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Green (U.S. Pre-
Grant Publication 2005/0017257, published Jan. 27, 2005), and of claims 3,
4, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Green in view of
Yamazaki (U.S. Patent 7,528,418, issued May 5, 2009) (Final Rej. 5-9;
App. Br. 5).
2
Appeal2014--005682
Application 13/259,444
Appellants present arguments focusing on independent claim 1, with
arguments concerning the other claims stating that the claims are allowable
for the same reasons as claim 1 and that the additional reference in the
obviousness rejection does not cure the deficiencies of Green with respect to
claim 1 (See App. Br., generally). As such, claim 1 is the focus of the
appeal, with all of the claims standing or falling together.
ANALYSIS
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner's finding that the claimed subject matter of
representative claim 1 is anticipated within the meaning of§ 102 in view of
the applied prior art of Green. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer, including the
Examiner's Response to Argument section, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
"[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification
to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad
interpretation." In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2007). "[A]s applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope,
a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the
applicant or patentee." Id.
Appellants and the Examiner dispute whether Green's light-emitting
diode has metal layers in the metal-dielectric-metal structure that are
"disposed about orthogonally to" the p---i junction and the i-n junctions
between the p---doped and n---doped portions with the non-doped intrinsic
3
Appeal2014--005682
Application 13/259,444
portion of the semiconductor and whether Green's diode has a dielectric
structure that "comprises said intrinsic portion" of the semiconductor (App.
Br. 7-9; Ans. 3-5). Appellants' position is that Green's light-emitting diode
features curved junctions between the doped portions and the intrinsic
portion, where the metal layers do not overlap or contact either intrinsic
portion or the doped portions (App. Br. 7-8). According to Appellants,
Green's metal layers are not "disposed about orthogonally" to the junctions
because the junctions and metal layers are not orthogonal and because the
layers do not contact or abut the junctions orthogonally (App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 2). Additionally, Appellants argue that Green's silicon dioxide dielectric
layers isolate the metal layers from the silicon layer, which the Examiner
equates to the intrinsic portion in the rejection, so Green's dielectric medium
does not comprise the intrinsic portion as claimed (App. Br. 9-10). Finally,
Appellants point to Green's Paragraph 77, whichstates that the device in
Figure 4 is similar to a standard metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effective-
transistor but with the polarity reversed, so it does not have the claimed
structure (Reply Br. 3).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The
current claim language only requires that the metal layers "are disposed
about orthogonally" to the junctions. Appellants have not directed us to any
specific standard for "about", nor any special definition for "orthogonal" in
the Specification. The plain meaning of the term "orthogonal" is the
standard definition of "intersecting or lying at right angles." As shown in
Green's Figure 4, the metal layers are situated to lie at approximately right
angles to the p---i and i-njunctions (Ans. 2--4). The claim language does not
require that the metal layers perpendicularly abut the uppermost section of
4
Appeal2014--005682
Application 13/259,444
the junctions, and therefore, the silicon dioxide layers being between the
silicon and the metal layers does not exclude Green from disclosing the
metal layers' positioning or that the dielectric medium comprises the
intrinsic portion (see Ans. 4--5). Lastly, Appellants have not explained how
the claimed invention differs from Green's metal-oxide-semiconductor
field---eff ecti ve-transistor.
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's
position (Ans. generally). Notably, Appellants have not directed our
attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that
the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonable, nor to any portion of the
Specification that limits the definition of "disposed about orthogonally" to
exclude the light-emitting diode structure of Green as pointed out by the
Examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection. No
further substantive arguments were made regarding the § 103 rejections.
Thus, we also affirm the § 103 rejections.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
ORDER
AFFIRMED
5