Ex Parte Paek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2013

11600762 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HO-SUN PAEK, TAN SAKONG, JOONG-KON SON, and
SUNG-NAM LEE
____________

Appeal 2011-006905
Application 11/600,762
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-27 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-006905
Application 11/600,762

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a semiconductor device
and method for fabricating the same having improved surface morphology
characteristics (Spec. 1:14-16).
Independent claim 14, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
14. A method of fabricating a semiconductor device
comprising:

epitaxially growing an AlxGa(l-x)N(0 ≤ x <1) buffer layer
on an r-plane sapphire substrate to a thickness in the range of
100-20000 Ã… in a gas atmosphere containing nitrogen (N2) and
at a temperature of greater than 900 and less than 1100°C to
form a buffer layer; and

forming a first a-plane GaN layer on the buffer layer.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 13-24, 26, and 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of
Nagahama (US 6,172,382 B1, issued January 9, 2001), Hata (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2002/0190263 A1, published December 19, 2002),
Chitnis (Ashay Chitnis et al., Visible Light-Emitting Diodes Using A-plane
GaN-InGaN Multiple Quantum Wells Over R-plane Sapphire, Applied
Physics Letter, Vol. 84, No. 18, 3663-65 (May 3, 2004)), and Chua (US
6,645,885 B2, issued Nov. 11, 2003) (Ans. 4-16).
The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Nagahama, Hata, Chitnis,
Chua, and Tanaka (US 6,835,965 B2, issued Dec. 28, 2004) (Ans. 16-17).

Appeal 2011-006905
Application 11/600,762

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding the
combination of Nagahama, Hata, Chitnis, and Chua teaches or suggests
Appellants’ claimed invention (Br. 7). Particularly, Appellants contend
Nagahama does not disclose growing the “buffer layer on the r-plane
sapphire substrate as recited in claims 1, 13, 14, and 27 at a temperature of
greater than 900 and less than 1100°C” (id.). Further, Appellants contend,
Nagahama does not disclose epitaxially growing the buffer layer in a gas
atmosphere containing nitrogen or that a GaN layer formed on the buffer
layer has an a-plane orientation (id.). We do not agree.
We agree with the Examiner and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our
own. Particularly, we agree Nagahama discloses buffer layer 112, grown at a
temperature higher than 900°C, can be formed directly on the r-plane
sapphire substrate (Ans. 17-18; Nagahama col. 19, ll. 13-15). We also agree
Appellants are arguing the references separately (Ans. 21, 22). For example,
the Examiner relies on Hata and Chitnis for disclosing an a-plane buffer
layer and not Nagahama (Ans. 6 citing Hata, ¶ [0049] and Chitnis, p. 3663).
In light of the teachings of the cited references, it would have been an
obvious design choice to use an a-plane buffer layer of GaN. Thus, we find
the Examiner’s findings are reasonable. Appellants have not rebutted these
findings and have not pointed out why the references cannot be combined or
how Nagahama would function differently based on the combination.
Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s
reading of the claims on the cited combination of references is overly broad,
unreasonable, or inconsistent with the Specification. We find the weight of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
Appeal 2011-006905
Application 11/600,762

4
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 14, and 27, and dependent
claims 2-11, 15-24, and 26, in which separate arguments have not been
provided (Br. 11). We also agree with the Examiner that dependent claims
12 and 25 are obvious over the cited references as no substantive arguments
were presented by Appellants regarding the addition of Tanaka (Br. 12).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw