Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201612503386 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/503,386 07/15/2009 Qingchun Zhang 65106 7590 02/18/2016 MYERS BIGEL & SIBLEY, PA P.O. BOX 37428 RALEIGH, NC 27627 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. 5308-1075 8023 EXAMINER ZHU, SHENG-BAI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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): uspto@myersbigel.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte QINGCHUN ZHANG and ANANT K. AGARWAL Appeal2013-005144 Application 12/503,386 Technology Center 2800 Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-16, and 20-26. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to microelectronic devices. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 8, and the Examiner's objection to claim 8 is not before us. See Ans. 3. Appeal2014-005144 Application 12/503,386 1. A packaged power electronic device, comprising: a bipolar driver transistor comprising a wide bandgap semiconductor material and having a driver base terminal, a driver collector terminal, and a driver emitter terminal; and a bipolar output transistor comprising a wide bandgap semiconductor material and having an output base terminal, an output collector terminal, and an output emitter terminal, wherein the output collector terminal is coupled to the driver collector terminal, and wherein the output base terminal is coupled to the driver emitter terminal to provide a Darlington pair, wherein a blocking voltage of the packaged power electronic device is greater than about 5 kilovolts (kV). References and Rejections Claims 1-3, 14, 15, 21and24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by, or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over, Zhao ("1570V, 14A 4H-SiC Bipolar Darlington with a High Current Gain of B>462", published www.scientific.net/MSF.457-460.l 169. Claims 1, 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang ("Hybrid All-SiC MOS-Gated Bipolar Transistor," Proceedings of the l 41h International Symposium on Power Semiconductor Devices and ICs, 2002). 2 Appeal2014-005144 Application 12/503,386 Claims 5-8, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang and Oka (US Patent No. 6,140,690; issued Oct. 31, 2000). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang and Powers (US Patent No. 4,289,977; issued Sept 15, 1981). Claims 9, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang, Oka, Mizukoshi (US Patent No. 4,136,355; issued Jan. 23, 1979), and Clark (US Patent No. 3,758,831; Sept 11, 1973). Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang and Sasaki (US Patent Pub. No. 2006/0138460; published June 29, 2006). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang, Sasaki, and Mochizuki (US Patent Pub. No. 2007/0241427; published Oct. 18, 2007). Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tang, Iwamuro (US Patent No. 6,242,967B1; issued June 5, 2001), and Bonis (US Patent No. 4,058,967; issued Nov. 15, 1977). ANALYSIS2 First, we have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred 2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issues are dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. 3 Appeal2014-005144 Application 12/503,386 in finding Zhao teaches "wherein a blocking voltage of the packaged power electronic device is greater than about 5 kilovolts (kV)," as recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 7-10. The Examiner does not map the disputed claim limitation, but finds because "Zhao discloses a SiC bipolar Darlington ... Zhao discloses a substantially identical device, the claimed function is anticipated or obvious." Ans. 3-5. The Examiner's unsupported finding contradicts the understanding of one skilled in the art. Indeed, Zhao states: "The Darlington can block voltages up to 1571 V[. ]" Zhao Abstract. Therefore, Zhao teaches its Darlington device has a blocking voltage of up to 1571 V- not greater than about 5 kilovolts (kV), as required by the claim. Therefore, the Examiner fails to show the disputed claim limitation is taught by or obvious in light of Zhao' s teachings. Second, we have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Tang teaches "wherein a blocking voltage of the packaged power electronic device is greater than about 5 kilovolts (kV)," as recited in independent claim 1. See App. Br. 11-13. The Examiner finds: Tang discloses a substantially identical device, the claimed function is anticipated or obvious. In particular, Tang discloses the SiC MGT has a breakdown voltage (also called Blocking Voltage ... ) of 5kV or higher (last Para. of Tang). Final Rej. 9; see also Ans. 6-7. Tang states "[t]his MOS-gated bipolar transistor structure is expected to be an important SiC power transistor for power electronics applications at 4 Appeal2014-005144 Application 12/503,386 5kV or higher." Tang 56. The claimed blocking voltage is defined explicitly in Appellants' Specification as "the voltage that may be applied across the collector and the emitter of a transistor when the transistor is in its 'off state without significant leakage." Specification [069]. In contrast, breakdown voltage is defined explicitly in Appellants' Specification as "the voltage applied across collector and the emitter of the transistor in its 'off state at which significant leakage current starts to flow." Specification [069]. Therefore, the Examiner incorrectly equates Tang's breakdown voltage to the claimed blocking voltage. 3 See App. Br. 12-13. In addition, Tang's disclosure of 5kV is associated with the structure of a MOSFET and bipolar transistor (not the claimed structure of two bipolar transistors) and therefore, such teaching of 5k V does not support the Examiner's finding in any event. See App. Br. 11-12. Further, the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how such claim limitation is taught or suggested by the structure of Tang, as modified by replacing the MOSFET driver with a bipolar driver transistor. See Final Rej. 8-9; Ans. 6-7. Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's 3 Tang does not refer to "5kV or higher" as breakdown voltage in any event. See Tang 56. If the Examiner uses the term "breakdown voltage" consistent with the Specification's definition, then a breakdown voltage is clearly not the claimed "blocking voltage." If the Examiner uses the term "breakdown voltage" differently from the Specification's definition, Tang's disclosure of "5kV or higher" cannot be the claimed blocking voltage, because it contradicts the Specification's definition of "blocking voltage," which defines a voltage up to a certain level. 5 Appeal2014-005144 Application 12/503,386 rejection of claim 1, and corresponding dependent claims for similar reasons. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 14 and 21, and corresponding dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-16, and 20-26 is reversed. REVERSED lv 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation