Ex Parte Sriram

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 15, 2011

11157356 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/157,356 06/21/2005 Saptharishi Sriram 5308-498 7439
20792 7590 08/16/2011
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
MATTHEWS, COLLEEN ANN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2811
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SAPTHARISHI SRIRAM
________________

Appeal 2009-011322
Application 11/157,356
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011322
Application 11/157,356

2
SUMMARY
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-35:
Claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-32, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Liu (US 5,850,099; issued Dec. 15, 1998); and
Claims 9, 20, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Liu.
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s claimed invention:
1. A semiconductor device comprising:
a plurality of unit cells connected in parallel, each of the
unit cells having a a [sic] first electrode, a second electrode and
a gate finger, wherein at least one of the first electrodes at a
center of the semiconductor device has a first width, at least one
of the first electrodes at a periphery of the semiconductor
device has a second width, smaller than the first width, and the
second electrodes have a substantially constant width such that
a pitch between the gate fingers is non-uniform.

ARGUMENTS
The Examiner finds that independent claims 1, 13, 23, and 25 read on
Liu’s embodiment depicted in Figures 3A and 3B (Ans. 3-6). Figures 3A
and 3B, as annotated by the Examiner (see Ans. 4), are reproduced below:
App
App

elect
sour
label
smal
cons
(Ans
eal 2009-0
lication 11
Figu
se

Accordin
rodes 22;
ce fingers
ed by the
ler width W
tant width
. 3-4 and 7
11322
/157,356
res 3A an
ctional vi
g to the E
the claime
(claims 13
Examiner
2); and t
s read on t
-8).
d 3B resp
ews of a b
xaminer, t
d wider an
, 23, and 2
as UB1 (h
he second
he electrod
3
ectively d
ipolar tra
he claimed
d narrowe
5), respec
aving widt
, or drain,
es labeled
epict plan
nsistor st
gate fing
r first elec
tively read
h W1) and
electrodes
UA2, UB
and cross
ructure.
ers read o
trodes (cla
on the ele
UA1 (ha
of substan
2, and UC
-
n
im 1), or
ctrodes
ving
tially
2, UD1

Appeal 2009-011322
Application 11/157,356

4
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner has erred in
concluding that the electrode UA1 has a width W2, or that the electrode’s
width is smaller than the width W1 of electrode UB1 because Figures 3A
and 3B only depict cutaway views of electrode UA1 (App. Br. 6 (noting that
electrode UA1 is depicted with a wavy line to indicate that the entire device
is not illustrated)).

ISSUE
Has the Examiner established that Liu anticipates the independent
claims?

ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, we question the Examiner’s basis for
concluding that Figures 3A and 3B depict gate electrodes or gate fingers.
Liu is primarily concerned with heating uniformity in bipolar transistors
(transistors having emitter, base, and collector regions) by providing emitter
fingers with non-uniform spacing (see Abstract; cols. 1-5), and Liu expressly
states that Figures 3A and 3B, like Figure 1, depict bipolar transistors (col. 2,
ll. 20-31; col. 3, ll. 1-52). Liu does state that the inventive concepts can also
be applied to field effect transistors (transistors having source, gate, and
drain regions) (col. 2, l. 54 – col. 3, l. 1). However, Liu does not state that
such field effect transistors would have a structure identical to that depicted
in Figures 3A and 3B, much less that the emitter fingers of a bipolar
Appeal 2009-011322
Application 11/157,356

5
transistor could function as the gates of field effect transistors. That is, Liu
only indicates that electrode fingers 20, 22 are emitter fingers of a bipolar
transistor (col. 3, ll. 1-52). We find no basis to support the Examiner’s
finding (see Ans. 3) that fingers 22 can be interpreted as constituting gate
fingers of a field effect transistor.
Even if we were to assume arguendo that the collector contacts 18 of
Liu’s bipolar transistors (labeled in Fig 1; col. 3, l. 9) could be interpreted as
first electrodes in a unit cell containing gate fingers (i.e., source/drain
electrodes of field effect transistors), Appellant’s arguments (e.g., App. Br.
6) would still be persuasive. Figures 3A and 3B only depict cutaway views
of collector contact UA1. We find no basis to support the Examiner’s
conclusion that contact UA1 has a width that is smaller than the width of
central collector contact UB1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 23, and 25.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims or
of claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-19, 21, 22, 24, 26-32, 34, and 35, which depend
from these claims.
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 9, 20, and
33, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of Liu does not cure the deficiency
of the anticipation rejection explained above. For the reasons discussed
above, then, we likewise do not sustain the rejections of these claims.

Appeal 2009-011322
Application 11/157,356

6
DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections with respect to all
pending claims on appeal. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1-35 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk