Ex Parte Takase

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2013

11515747 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte TADASHI TAKASE
____________

Appeal 2010-009307
Application 11/515,747
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EVANS, and
BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claim 1.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1
Claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-009307
Application 11/515,747

2
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a semiconductor laser
element, and particularly, to a semiconductor laser element used as a light
source for an information recording apparatus. Spec. 1, ll. 11-13.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of producing a semiconductor laser element,
comprising:
a step of growing a lower cladding layer, an active layer, a first
left upper cladding layer, a first etching stopper layer, a second
left upper cladding layer, a second etching stopper layer, an
upper cladding layer and a contact layer in that order on a
semiconductor substrate to form a laminate structure;
a step of doping an impurity end portions near to edge surfaces
of the laminate structure so as to cross over the active layer to
form window regions;
a step of etching the contact layer in the window regions;
a step of forming a protective film to form a ridge;
a step of dry etching the laminate structure on both sides of the
protective film thereby partially removing the second left upper
cladding layer in the window regions and partially removing the
upper cladding layer in a region extending between the window
regions; and
a step of wet etching the window regions up to the first etching
stopper layer and the region, between the window regions, up to
the second etching stopper layer.

EVIDENCE CONSIDERED
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koch US 4,932,032 Jun. 5, 1990
Suyama US 5,022,036 Jun.4, 1991
Shima US 5,161,166 Nov. 3, 1992
Mersali US 6,025,207 Feb. 15, 2000
Appeal 2010-009307
Application 11/515,747

3
Kuniyasu US 2002/0061044 A1 May 23, 2002
Matumoto US 2003/0026309 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Matsumura US 2003/0128729 A1 Jul. 10, 2003

Michael Quirk & Julian Serda, Semiconductor Manufacturing Technology
p. 436 (Prentice-Hall 2001) (“Quirk”).
REJECTION
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Suyama, Shima, Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu,
Mersali, and Matsumura. Ans. 3-6.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited prior art discloses “a
step of wet etching the window regions up to the first etching stopper layer
and the region, between the window regions, up to the second etching
stopper layer,” as recited in independent claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office
Action. We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions and highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that no proper
combination of Suyama, Shima, Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu,
Mersali, and Matsumura discloses the disputed step (App. Br. 4-7).
Appellant’s arguments are in part improperly based on individual reference
disclosures, rather than considering the combination that is the basis for the
Appeal 2010-009307
Application 11/515,747

4
rejection (e.g., “Suyama fails to anticipate Appellant’s claimed method”)
(App. Br. 5). Additionally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner improperly applies the standard for a product-by-process
claim (App. Br. 5). We agree with the Examiner’s detailed findings that
each step of claim 1 is disclosed by the combination of Suyama, Shima,
Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu, Mersali, and Matsumura (Ans. 3-9).
In particular with respect to the disputed step, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments that Quirk and Mersali considered individually fail to
meet the disputed step (App. Br. 6). The Examiner correctly finds that
Quirk and Mersali disclose using wet etching after the dry etching (Ans. 6).
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that therefore, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of
Suyama, Koch, and Matumoto to use wet etching in the same regions of the
structure (i.e., the window regions and the region between the window
regions) where dry etching had previously been applied (Ans. 8-9).
We agree with Appellant to the extent that Appellant argues that the
Examiner did not apply only the disclosure of Quirk and Mersali to “a step
of wet etching the window regions up to the first etching stopper layer and
the region, between the window regions, up to the second etching stopper
layer” (App. Br. 7). However, in addition to the Examiner’s findings
regarding Quirk, Mersali, and Suyama (Ans. 6, 7-9), the Examiner also finds
that Koch and Matumoto disclose a first etching stopper layer and a second
etching stopper layer (Ans. 4, 7, 9). We agree with the Examiner that in the
Appeal Brief, Appellant fails to challenge the Examiner’s findings regarding
Koch and Matumoto (Ans. 9).

Appeal 2010-009307
Application 11/515,747

5
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Suyama, Shima, Quirk, Koch, Matumoto, Kuniyasu,
Mersali, and Matsumura. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD