Ex Parte Saxler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201311103117 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/103,117 04/11/2005 Adam William Saxler 5308-553 7135 20792 7590 05/29/2013 MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC PO BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 EXAMINER CHIU, TSZ K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2822 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ADAM WILLIAM SAXLER, YIFENG WU, PRIMIT PARIKH, UMESH MISHRA, RICHARD PETER SMITH, and SCOTT T. SHEPARD ____________ Appeal 2010-011616 Application 11/103,117 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011616 Application 11/103,117 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 1-11, 13-45, and 47-86. Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to a multilayered semiconductor device structure having a conductive semiconductor substrate. Appeal Brief 2. Illustrative Claim (Emphasis Added) 1. A semiconductor device structure, comprising: an electrically conductive semiconductor substrate; a semi-insulating or insulating GaN epitaxial layer on thesemiconductor substrate, the semi-insulating or insulating GaNepitaxial layer having a thickness of at least about 4 µm; and a conductive buffer layer disposed between the substrate andthe semi-insulating or insulating GaN epitaxial layer. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-3, 7-11, 13, 15-17, 21-25, 27-35, 37-39, 48-52, 54-57, 59, 61, 62, 64-67, 74, 76-80, and 82-85 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Murata (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0001235 A1; published January 6, 2005). Answer 3-5. Claims 4-6, 40-42, and 66-70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Murata. Answer 5-6. Appeal 2010-011616 Application 11/103,117 3 Claims 14, 26, 36, 47, 53, 58, 60, 63, 75, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Murata and Saxler (U.S. Patent Number 6,841,001 B2; issued January 11, 2005). Answer 6. Claims 18-20, 43-45, 71-73, and 86 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Murata and D’Evelyn (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0087753 A1; published April 28, 2005). Answer 6-7. Issue on Appeal Does Murata disclose a conductive buffer layer disposed between a substrate and a semi-insulating/insulating layer? ANALYSIS Appellants contends that Murata does not anticipate independent claims 1, 21, 37 and 65 because the claims recite limitations wherein a conductive buffer layer is disposed between a substrate and a semi- insulating or insulating GaN epitaxial layer and Murata does not disclose a conductive buffer layer as claimed. Appeal Brief 6-7. The Examiner finds that Murata anticipates the independent claims because although Murata discloses a buffer layer that is made of high resistance aluminum gallium nitride, the fact that aluminum gallium nitride can be conductive means that Murata anticipates the claims. Answer 7-8. Both Appellants and Examiner refer to Murata paragraph [0054] wherein it states, “a buffer layer 12 as a first semiconductor layer made of a high resistance aluminum gallium nitride. . . .” We do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection because Murata does not disclose that the buffer layer is conductive and the mere Appeal 2010-011616 Application 11/103,117 4 possibility that the buffer layer could be conductive is not enough to establish anticipation. “‘For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference.’” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Further, although the claims do not recite the type of conductivity of the buffer layer, electrical and/or thermal, Murata is silent in regard to the thermal conductivity of the high resistance buffer layer. It is noted that the independent claims do not preclude the buffer layer from being thermally conductive only. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of the dependent claims for the same reasons stated above. DECISIONS We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 21, 37, and 65 and well as dependent claims 2, 3, 7-11, 13, 15-17, 22-25, 27-35, 38, 39, 48-52, 54-57, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 74, 76-80, and 82- 85. We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4-6, 14, 18-20, 26, 36, 40-45, 47, 53, 58, 60, 63, 66-73, 75, 81, and 86. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation