Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201612037211 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/037,211 02/26/2008 Qingchun Zhang 65106 7590 09/02/2016 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. 5308-859 3427 EXAMINER NADAV,ORI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2811 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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, CHARLOTTE JONAS, and ANANTK.AGARWAL Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 9, 12-16, 33-37, 40--42, 47, and 48. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Cree, Inc." (App. Br. 1 ). Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 Claim 33, the broadest independent claim, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to highlight key limitations for purposes of this appeal): 33. An edge termination structure for a semiconductor device, comprising: at least two spaced apart concentric floating guard rings in a semiconductor layer, the at least two spaced apart concentric floating guard rings configured to reduce electric field breakdown of the device and each of the at least two spaced apart concentric floating guard rings having a highly doped portion and a lightly doped portion, wherein the highly doped portion and the lightly doped portion of each of the at least two spaced apart concentric floating guard rings have an associated dopant concentration; and wherein the dopant concentration of the lightly doped portion of each of the at least two spaced apart concentric floating guard rings decreases from a main semiconductor junction of the semiconductor device at a center of the device to a periphery of the semiconductor device such that a lightly doped portion of the guard rings adjacent the main semiconductor junction have a higher dopant concentration than a lightly doped portion of the guard rings adjacent a periphery of the semiconductor device providing a gradient in the lightly doped portions of the guard rings. Appellants appeal the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103(a): 2 I. Claims 1--4, 9, 12-16, 33-37 and 40--48 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Einthoven (US 4,742,377, issued May 3, 1988), and Ryu (US 7,026,650 B2, issued Apr. 11, 2006); II. Claim 4 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Einthoven, Ryu, and Yilmaz (Optimization and Surface Charge Sensitivity of High- 2 The Examiner withdrew all of the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (Ans. 2). 2 Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 Voltage Blocking Structures with Shallow Junctions, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES, vol. 38, 1666-1675 (July 1991); III. Claims 1--4, 9, 12-16, 33-37 and 40--48 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Ryu, Einthoven, Yasuoka (US 7,875,946 B2, issued Jan. 25, 2011), and Rodgers (US 5,233,209, issued Aug. 3, 1993); IV. Claim 4 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Ryu, Einthoven, Y asuoka, Rodgers, and Yilmaz. Appellants mainly argue the claims in each of rejections I and III as a group, but focus their arguments on limitations of independent claim 1 (e.g., Br. 9), stating that "[i]ndependent Claim 33 contains similar recitations to the highlighted [disputed] recitations of Claim 1" (id.). However, Appellants fail to appreciate that claim 33 lacks the highlighted limitation in claim 1 of "a main semiconductor junction at a center of the device." Accordingly, we mainly focus our discussion on limitations common to independent claims 1 and 33, and address the additional limitation of claim 1 as needed. We also address Appellants' separate argument regarding dependent claims 9 and 37 (Br. 11, 12). We also address Appellants' arguments regarding the separate rejection of claim 4 (Br. 13, 15). ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence on this record and each of Appellants' contentions, we find that the preponderance of evidence on this record supports the Examiner's conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants' claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections because we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's determination of obviousness essentially for the reasons set out by the Examiner in the Answer. 3 Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 We add the following primarily for emphasis. It has been established that "the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-- 65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). With respect to the 103 rejections I and II, Appellants' first argument is that Einthoven does not state "that the dopant concentration of the guard ring decreases from the main semiconductor junction of the semiconductor device to a periphery" (e.g., Br. 9, 10). To the contrary, Einthoven discusses a higher doped guard ring portion 7 closer to the semiconductor junction .1 1 • 1 ' 1 1 1 • '. r\. 1 ' 11 1• ' ' • '. ,..., man a ngmer aopea guara nng pon10n 'J iacerauy aaJacem w nng pon10n / (see, e.g. col. 3 11. 59---65). The lighter doped portion 9 impurity concentration also "gradually decreases in the direction away from the conductor layer" by "the peripheral edge of insulating layer 3 prior to implanting the rings" beveling (Einthoven col. 4 11. 3-8; Fig. 4). This description combined with the depiction of the lightly doped portion 9 and its relationship to conductive layer 3 and beveled portion of insulating layer 3 in Fig. 4, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to have reasonably inferred that the dopant concentration gradually decreasing "in the direction away from" the semiconductor layer 13 encompasses both a downward direction as well as a lateral direction in the lightly doped guard ring portion 9. (Id.). 4 Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that Einthoven' s doping gradient in portion 9 is only in the downward direction, the Examiner reasonably determined that the lower edge of the device is a peripheral edge (Ans. 18). Appellants' arguments that the dopant gradient must be in a lateral direction are unpersuasive (Reply Br. 2). Claims 1 and 33 do not specify that the gradient is in a lateral direction. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCP A 1982) (It is well established that limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). In any event, as discussed previously, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred that Einthoven's ring portion 9 dopant concentration gradually decreasing "in the direction away from" the conductor layer 13 (Einthoven col. 4 11. 5) encompasses both a downward direction as well as a lateral direction. Appellants have not directed our attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner's interpretation that the claim encompasses the Einthoven/R yu guard ring combination is unreasonable. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (it is well established that "the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification" and if the Specification does not provide a definition for claim terms, the PTO applies a broad interpretation). Appellants also contend that Ryu would be nonfunctional if the charge were increased to the ranges recited in claims 9 and 37 (Br. 12-13).3 The 3 While Appellants also refer to claims 12 and 40, only claims 9 and 37 are limited to a specific dopant concentration. 5 Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 Examiner aptly points out that in rejections I and II, Einthoven is being modified, not Ryu, so this argument is not on point (Ans. 21-22). Appellants' arguments with respect to dependent claim 4 are not persuasive for reasons set out by the Examiner (Ans. 22). Appellants' mere conclusion that the Examiner was using improper hindsight does not adequately address the Examiner's rejection (App. Br. 14). With respect to the 103 rejections III and IV, Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings that each of Einthoven, Y asuoka, and Rodgers teach that having a gradient of dopant concentration in a guard ring that decreases towards the periphery of a device is desirable (Final Act. 14-- 16; Ans. 24; App. Br. 14, 15). Indeed, Rodgers states that an ideal guard ring has both a vertically and laterally graded junction and a "dopant distribution that reduces smoothly and continuously" away from the main juncture (Rodgers col. 3 11. 31---60; Fig. 2 showing the dopant profile of the guard ring). Rather, Appellants' only argument is that it would not have been obvious to combine any of these references' teachings with Ryu because the doping of Ryu increases from the main junction to the outer periphery and the proposed modification would render Ryu "non-functional" (App. Br. 15). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for reasons set out by the Examiner (Ans. 24, 25 (explaining that Ryu' s suggestion of a single dopant concentration in guard rings 34 as argued by Appellants does not lead to the conclusion that providing a dopant gradient as is well-known in the art would have rendered the device non-functional)). Furthermore, Appellants have not disputed the Examiner's finding that Ryu has a dopant concentration in areas 3 6 that is lower than areas 34, which is similar to the instant case (compare, e.g., Ryu's Fig. 3 to Specification Fig. 3). Appellants 6 Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 provide no persuasive technical reasoning or evidence that the proposed modification would have rendered Ryu non-functional. An attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would not have combined the teachings of a guard ring having a dopant gradient to arrive at a modified guard ring structure in Ryu as stated by the Examiner. Thus, on this record, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would have used a known dopant guard ring gradient as exemplified in Einhoven, Rodgers (and/or Yasuoka) for the guard ring structure of Ryu (Ans. 3---6). KSR Int 'l Co., 550 U.S. at 417 (2007) (the predictable use of known prior art elements performing the same functions they have been known to perform is normally obvious; the 1 • '. .. .. • 1. 1 ' • 1 •1 1 ' 1 1 • 1 • ' 1 comomauon or ramurnr e1emems is 11Ke1y woe oov10us wnen n aoes no more than yield predictable results); Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the "inferences and creative steps," as well as routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ). Appellants present no further arguments regarding rejection (III) (App. Br. 15). To the extent Appellants rely upon the same arguments for the rejection (IV) of dependent claim 4 as for rejection (II) (App. Br. 15), a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. 7 Appeal2015-000397 Application 12/03 7 ,211 Consequently, after consideration of Appellants' arguments, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's determination of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) of all the claims on appeal for the reasons given above and presented by the Examiner. DECISION The Examiner's§ 103 rejections (Rejections I-IV) are affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation