Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

13438902 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/438,902 04/04/2012
27820 7590 05/05/2016
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Qingchun Zhang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1194-112 2831
EXAMINER
AHMED, SHARED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QINGCHUN ZHANG, ANANT K. AGARWAL, and
LIN CHENG
Appeal2015-000039
Application 13/438,902
Technology Center 2800
Before JESSICA C. KAISER, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Cree, Inc. (App. Br.
1.)
2 The Examiner finds claims 20-34 are allowable and claim 12 would be
allowable if rewritten in independent form. (Final Act. 1, 4, 8-9.)
Appeal2015-000039
Application 13/438,902
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A bipolar junction transistor comprising:
a collector layer;
a recess region embedded in the collector layer, such that
the recess region is a first type of semiconductor material and is
below a base-collector plane;
a base layer on the collector layer, such that the base layer
is the first type of semiconductor material and the base-collector
plane is between the base layer and the collector layer; and
a first emitter layer on the base layer.
REJECTION
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-11 and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Veliadis (US 8,105,911 B2; issued Jan. 31, 2012).
(Final Act. 5-8.)
ISSUES
The issues raised by Appellants' arguments are:
Did the Examiner err in finding Veliadis discloses "a recess region
embedded in the collector layer, such that the recess region is a first type of
semiconductor material and is below a base-collector plane," as recited in
claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding Veliadis discloses "a second emitter
layer on the first emitter layer," as recited in dependent claim 16?
2
Appeal2015-000039
Application 13/438,902
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 17-19
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions regarding the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. In so far as they
relate to issues raised in this appeal regarding claim 1, we adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from
which the appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2-5). We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding V eliadis discloses "a
bipolar junction transistor having a recess region that is a first type of
semiconductor material embedded in a collector layer of the transistor below
a base-collector plane," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 3---6.) Specifically,
Appellants argue V eliadis' trenches and guard ring edge termination
structures do not disclose the recited "recess region" because the trenches
are electrically isolated from the device. (See id. at 4.) In contrast,
Appellants argue the recited "recess region" "electrically connects to the
emitter for avalanche improvement." (Id. at 4--5.)
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Figure 7 of Veliadis as
annotated by the Examiner (Ans. 4) is reproduced below.
3
Appeal2015-000039
Application 13/438,902
1.20
-........-~·-·_,..
r~~;:~~ss r~;9H:~n
\~·~hth F~ type
~rnbc.~~:ideci ·if'$
Figure 7 of Veliadis depicts an embodiment of a bipolar junction
transistor 700. As shown in annotated Figure 7, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, recess region 710 discloses the recited "recess region." (Ans. 2--4.)
In particular, we agree with the Examiner (id.) that region 710 is "embedded
in the collector layer," is "below a base-collector plane" (i.e., the plane
"between the base layer and the collector layer"), and is a first type of
semiconductor material (i.e., P-type ). 3
3 The Examiner finds Veliadis discloses the base layer is also a first type of
semiconductor material (i.e., P-type). (Final Act. 5 (citing Veliadis 4:64--
65).)
4
Appeal2015-000039
Application 13/438,902
We observe that Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 3---6) are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which is silent regarding avalanche
improvement or an electrical connection between the recess region and the
emitter. In addition, we find Appellants' argument that "the disclosure of
Veliadis is not capable of operating as a point of avalanche" (App. Br. 5)
unpersuasive because it relies only on attorney argument, which is not
evidence. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974)
("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.").
Appellants argue the trench in V eliadis is "not a first type of
semiconductor material, where a base layer is also of the first type of
semiconductor material ... [because] the trench is filled with isolation
dielectrics, which are clearly different from a material used to form the base
that is disclosed in Figure 7." (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 5.) We agree
with the Examiner that claim 1 does not preclude isolation dielectric regions
720 in annotated Figure 7 above. (Ans. 3.) In addition, Appellants'
argument is not responsive to the Examiner's findings. In particular, the
Examiner finds the recessed region 710 which is a P-type semiconductor
material, not the portion of the trench filled with isolation dielectrics,
discloses the recited "recessed region." (Final Act 5; Ans. 2-3.)
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's§ 102
rejection ofclaim 1 and claims 2-11, 13-15, and 17-19, not argued
separately (App. Br. 6).
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1 and recites "[ t ]he bipolar junction
transistor of claim 1 further comprising a second emitter layer on the first
5
Appeal2015-000039
Application 13/438,902
emitter layer." Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Veliadis
discloses this limitation of claim 16. (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5---6.) We agree
with Appellants' argument.
The Examiner finds that in Veliadis' Figure 7, the metal layer on
emitter layer 730 (as shown in the annotated Figure 7 above) discloses the
recited "second emitter layer." (Ans. 4, 6.) The Examiner also finds that
Veliadis discloses that "additional layers may be included to achieve an
optimal BJT [(bipolar junction transistor)] design." (Id. at 6 (quoting
Veliadis 5: 1-3 ). ) We determine these findings are insufficient to support an
anticipation rejection of claim 16. Specifically, the Examiner does not
sufficiently show that Veliadis discloses the metal layer is an emitter layer.
Additionally, while column 5 of Veliadis might suggest that a second emitter
layer could be used, such a suggestion is insufficient to support an
anticipation rejection. See, e.g., In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) ("Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient.") (citations omitted).
For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's decision to reject dependent claim 16.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11, 13-15, and
17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claim 16 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 102(b).
6
Appeal2015-000039
Application 13/438,902
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7