Ex Parte Shi

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 14, 2005

09851839 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte BINQIANG SHI
_____________
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 08/851,839
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WALTZ, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 27, 29 through 33, 39 and 40.
Claims 34 through 38 are the only other claims pending in this
application and stand withdrawn from further consideration by the
examiner as directed to a non-elected invention (Brief, page 2;
final Office action dated June 23, 2003, page 1). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
2
According to appellant, the invention is directed to a
method of growing a group III-IV crystal on top of another group
III-IV crystal (the substrate) without introducing lattice-
mismatched defects (Brief, page 2). Representative independent
claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of epitaxially growing a second crystal
over a first crystal, the first crystal having a first
lattice constant, the second crystal having a second lattice
constant, the method comprising the steps of:
a) cleansing a surface of the first crystal by
thermal desorption;
b) depositing a first layer of a first material
over the surface of the first crystal;
c) depositing a second layer of a second material
over the first layer; and
d) epitaxially growing the second crystal over the
second layer;
wherein the first layer substantially accommodates strain
accumulated between the first crystal and the second crystal
during epitaxial growth, thereby substantially preventing
strain relaxation and formation of dislocation defects.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Kubiak et al. (Kubiak) 4,330,360 May 18, 1982
Pessa et al. (Pessa) 4,876,218 Oct. 24, 1989
Hayakawa et al. (Hayakawa) 4,824,518 Apr. 25, 1989
Ogasawara 4,897,367 Jan. 30, 1990
Grunthaner et al. (Grunthaner) 5,094,974 Mar. 10, 1992
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
3
The following rejections are before us for review in this
appeal:
(1) claims 1-11, 25-27, 29-31 and 39-40 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa
(Answer, page 3);
(2) claims 12-16 and 18-22 stand rejected under section
103(a) as unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa and
Ogasawara (Answer, page 5);
(3) claims 17 and 23-24 stand rejected under section 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa, Ogasawara, and
Grunthaner (Answer, page 7); and
(4) claims 32-33 stand rejected under section 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pessa in view of Hayakawa, Ogasawara,
Grunthaner, and Kubiak (Answer, page 8).
Based on the totality of the record, including due
consideration of appellant’s Brief and Reply Brief and the
examiner’s Answer, we reverse all of the rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and
for those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Pessa discloses a method of
depositing a GaAs film on the surface of a Si or GaAs substrate,
where an effusion cell 3 contains Ga atoms and an effusion cell 4
contains As4 molecules (Answer, page 3). The examiner further
finds that Pessa teaches opening a shutter 6 in front of the As
cell allowing a vapor beam of As4 molecules to act on the surface
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
4
of the substrate for a period of time sufficient to form a one
atom layer, which “reads on” appellant’s first layer of material
deposited over the substrate (id.). The examiner also finds that
Pessa teaches closing shutter 6 and opening shutter 5 to allow a
vapor beam containing Ga atoms to act on the growing surface
until a single atom layer is formed, which “reads on” appellant’s
second layer of a second material deposited over the first layer
(Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4). The examiner finds that
the As layer and the Ga layer of atoms form a buffer layer, where
Pessa teaches that the buffer layer causes reduction in lattice
strain by creating mismatch dislocations, leading to a reduction
in threading dislocations (Answer, page 4). The examiner finds
that this “reads on” appellant’s first layer substantially
accommodating strain accumulated between the first crystal and
the second crystal during epitaxial growth, thereby preventing
strain relaxation and formation of dislocation defects (id.).
Finally, the examiner finds that Pessa teaches formation of a
GaAs film on the buffer layer by Molecular Beam Epitaxy, which
“reads on” appellant’s second crystal (id.).
The examiner relies on Hayakawa for its teaching of cleaning
a GaAs substrate by thermal desorption to remove oxidized films
(Answer, pages 4-5), as well as relying on Ogasawara, Grunthaner,
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
1We also note claim 27 on appeal, which has not been
separately argued by appellants or construed by the examiner.
The method recited in claim 27 is similar to claim 1 on appeal
but omits the word “substantially.”
5
and Kubiak for teachings of limitations occurring in several
dependent claims (Answer, pages 5-10).
The dispositive issue in this appeal is the construction
given the claim language by the examiner. The examiner construes
the limitation “wherein the first layer substantially
accommodates strain accumulated between the first crystal and the
second crystal during epitaxial growth” as meaning that the first
layer “merely has to accommodate any amount, which can be very
small, of the strain” (Answer, page 11). We disagree.1
As correctly argued by appellant, the examiner fails to
properly construe the phrase “substantially accommodates” in the
interpretation of the language in claim 1 on appeal (Reply Brief,
page 2). Appellant states, and the examiner does not dispute,
that the process of stacking the Ga layer over the As layer in
Pessa continues until the desired buffer layer thickness is
achieved, requiring many individual layers of As and Ga one atom
layers to achieve the desired thickness (Brief, page 16; Reply
Brief, page 4 (“anywhere from 32 to 1200 layers”); Pessa, col. 3,
ll. 60-62). As appellant correctly argues, a structure made up
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
2See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 2280
(Gove, ed., G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass., 1971).
6
of many layers would have the strain relief distributed over all
the layers (Brief, page 18; Reply Brief, page 4). The examiner
has not, on this record, introduced any evidence or technical
reasoning to the contrary. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in
this art would have reasonably believed that the first layer of
Pessa that “reads on” appellant’s claimed first layer would only
accommodate a small amount of the total strain (i.e., less than
100/32%). However, the phrase “substantially accommodating
strain” cannot be construed as broadly as interpreted by the
examiner to “read on” the small amounts of strain relief
accommodated by each layer of Pessa. Although not defined in the
specification, “substantially” must be given its ordinary meaning
“being that specified to a large degree or in the main” or
“relating to the main part of something.”2 This comports with
the context of the specification, which teaches only a first
condensed layer as the structure that will accommodate the strain
(specification, page 4, ll. 1-2). See Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel
Elecs., 847 F.2d 819, 821-22, 6 USPQ2d 2010, 2012-13 (Fed. Cir.
1988); Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731
F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
7
Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 564-65, 184 USPQ 484, 486 (CCPA 1975).
Accordingly, in view of our claim construction, we determine that
Pessa does not disclose or suggest the functional language in
question.
We additionally note that claim 1 on appeal requires
“substantially preventing” the formation of dislocation defects
while Pessa desires the creation of “mismatch dislocations,”
although reducing the disadvantageous threading dislocations
(Pessa, col. 1, ll. 39-49, and col. 2, ll. 35-42). The examiner
has not established why this limitation would have been disclosed
or suggested by Pessa or any other applied reference.
As discussed above, the secondary references applied by the
examiner do not remedy the deficiency in Pessa. Accordingly, we
determine that the examiner has not established that all the
limitations of claim 1 on appeal are taught by the combination of
references, and thus prima facie obviousness has not been
established. Therefore we cannot sustain any of the rejections
on appeal.
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
8
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TAW/hh
Appeal No. 2005-1353
Application No. 09/851,839
9
RICHARD P. BERG, ESQ.
C/O LADAS & PARRY
STE. 2100
5670 WILSHIRE BLVD.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90036-5679