Ex Parte Mauder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

14040883 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/040,883 09/30/2013 Anton Mauder 1012-0721 /2012P50853 6279
us
57579 7590 09/21/2017
MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ALMO, KHAREEM E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2842
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTON MAUDER, DANIEL DOMES, and FRANZ HIRLER
Appeal 2017-002578
Application 14/040,883
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’
final decision rejecting claims 1—7 and 13—16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Willmeroth et al. (US 2013/0249001 A1 published
Sept. 26, 2013)2. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Infineon Technologies Austria AG is stated to be the real party in interest
(Appeal Br. 2).
2 The Examiner stated claims 8—12, 18, and 19 contain allowable subject
matter (Ans. 6).
Appeal 2017-002578
Application 14/040,883
Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter (emphasis added
to identify disputed limitation):
1. As integrated circuit comprising a power transistor and a
drive circuit, wherein:
the drive circuit comprises at least one drive transistor;
the power transistor and the at least one drive transistor are
integrated in a common semiconductor body;
the power transistor comprises at least one transistor cell with a
source region, a body region, a drift region, a drain region, and
a gate electrode adjacent the body region and dielectrically
insulated from the body region by a gate dielectric; and
the at least one drive transistor comprises active device regions
integrated in a well-like structure comprising dielectric sidewall
layers.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
The only dispute in this case is whether Willmeroth identically
discloses “a well-like structure comprising dielectric sidewall layers” as
required in claim 1.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
[Ujnless a reference discloses within the four comers of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing
claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
NetMoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
“[Djuring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Translogic
2
Appeal 2017-002578
Application 14/040,883
Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). See also In re Am. Acad. ofSci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The scope of the claims in
patent applications is not determined solely on the basis of the claim
language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
the art.) (citations omitted); Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.’” (Citation omitted)) (see, e.g., Appeal Br.
8, 9 for discussion of the claimed dielectric sidewall layers as set forth in the
Specification).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner has taken an unreasonably broad
interpretation of the recited “dielectric sidewall layers” and thus, has not
shown how Willmeroth identically discloses this feature. A preponderance
of the evidence supports Appellants’ position.
Appellants urge that one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider
the semiconductor sidewalls of the well-like semiconductor structure 41 of
Willmeroth “dielectric sidewall layers” as required by the claims, and
provides a discussion of the Specification description of these layers, as well
as evidence in support of his position (Appeal Br. 4—11; Exhibits A — D;
Reply Br. generally). Appellants state that one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that the dielectric sidewall layers of claim 1 prevent
current flow in either direction, forward or reverse, versus the reverse biased
3
Appeal 2017-002578
Application 14/040,883
pn-junction of Willmeroth (e.g., Appeal Br. 10, 11). Indeed, as pointed out
by Appellants, the semiconductor material 41 of Willmeroth is doped to
manipulate and improve the electric conductivity of the semiconductor
material (Reply. Br. 3, 4).
The Examiner has not adequately explained how one of ordinary skill
would have reasonably considered Willmeroth’s semiconductor sidewalls 41
to be encompassed by the claimed dielectric sidewalls (Ans. generally).
Thus, Willmeroth’s semiconductor sidewalls fall short of being “dielectric
sidewalls” as required by the claims. Therefore, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has taken an unreasonably broad interpretation of the
aforementioned claim limitation when considered in light of the
Specification for the reasons explained in the Briefs and, in doing so, erred
in finding that Willmeroth discloses the claimed subject matter. As such, we
cannot sustain the anticipation rejection.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1—7
and 13—16 is reversed.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
4