Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 26, 2022

2021001073 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 16/317,023 01/10/2019 James S. Clarke P105988PCT-US 6663 106448 7590 01/26/2022 PATENT CAPITAL GROUP 30 Flower Lane Levittown, PA 19055 EXAMINER REAMES, MATTHEW L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2896 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/26/2022 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): PAIR_106448@patcapgroup.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES S. CLARKE, ROBERT L. BRISTOL, RAVI PILLARISETTY, JEANETTE M. ROBERTS, HUBERT C. GEORGE, and NICOLE K. THOMAS __________ Appeal 2021-001073 Application 16/317,023 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-12. The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 3). The Examiner indicates that claim 13 would be allowed if written in independent claim form (Ans. 3). The Examiner’s objection on page 3 of the Answer to claim 13 as being dependent on a rejected claim is not within the Board’s jurisdiction to review. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, §1201. We have 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2021-001073 Application 16/317,023 2 jurisdiction over the appeal of rejected claims 1-12 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant’s invention is directed to quantum dot devices (Spec. ¶ 19; Claim 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A quantum dot device, comprising: a quantum well stack including a quantum well layer; a plurality of gates above the quantum well stack, wherein at least two of the gates are spaced apart in a first dimension above the quantum well stack, at least two of the gates are spaced apart in a second dimension above the quantum well stack, and the first and second dimensions are perpendicular; and an insulating material above the quantum well stack, wherein the insulating material extends between at least two of the gates spaced apart in the first dimension, and the insulating material extends between at least two of the gates spaced apart in the second dimension. Appellant appeals the following rejection: Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Moon (US 7,830,695 B1; Nov. 9, 2010) in view of Katoh (US 6,333,516 B1; Dec. 25, 2001), Randall (US 5,447,873; Sept. 5, 1995) and Yang (US 2007/0063182 A1; Mar. 22, 2007). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, Appeal 2021-001073 Application 16/317,023 3 “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). Appellant argues the subject matter of claim 1 only (Appeal Br. 5-6). Accordingly, any claim not argued separately will stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding Moon, Katoh, Randall, and Yang are located on pages 3 to 5 of the Final Action. Appellant does not argue the combination of Katoh’s, Randall’s, or Yang’s teachings with Moon (Appeal Br. 5-6). Rather, Appellant argues that Moon does not teach that the spacer layer 180 extends between at least two gates 106, 108, 110, 112 spaced apart in the first dimension (Appeal Br. 5). Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim phrase “extends between” as including Moon’s gates 106, 108, 110, 112 positioned atop spacer layer 180 is inconsistent with the Specification (Appeal Br. 6; Final Act. 3-4; Ans. 4-5; Moon Fig. 1). The Examiner finds that the ordinary meaning of “between” includes the definition of “in the time, space, or interval that separates” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds the Specification defines in paragraph 22 the term “between” in the context of measurement ranges as including the end points of the range (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Appellant’s explicit definition of between in the context of measurement ranges indicates an appreciation by Appellant that the term between has multiple meanings (Ans. 5). The Examiner correctly finds the Specification does not define the term “between” or the phrase “extends between” in the context of relational settings (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds the Specification in paragraph 2 states that the figures are merely exemplary and not to be used to limit the invention (Ans. 5). Based on these findings, the Examiner determines that Appeal 2021-001073 Application 16/317,023 4 the phrase “extends between” is not limited to the embodiments shown in Appellant’s figures (Ans. 5). Claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification and the claim language should be read in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Appellant argues the Examiner’s construction of “between” is inconsistent with the Specification and contrary to how a person of skill in the art would interpret between, Appellant does not point us to any definition in their Specification or proffer evidence of how the phrase “extends between” would have been interpreted by a person skilled in the art (Appeal Br. 5-6; Reply Br. generally). In contrast, the Examiner has provided definitions from dictionaries and Appellant’s Specification as to the meaning of the term “between” (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner reasonably finds that between does not require that the objects (i.e., gates) must be co-planar for the insulating material to extend between the gates (Ans. 6). There is no requirement in claim 1 that the insulating material that extends between the gates fills the gap between the gates such that the insulating material is in contact with the sidewalls of the gates that face each other. The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s broadest reasonable construction that finds Moon’s spacer layer 180 extends between gates 106, 108, 110, and 112. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Moon, Katoh, Randall, and Yang. Appeal 2021-001073 Application 16/317,023 5 DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-12 103 Moon, Katoh, Randall, Yang 1-12 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) (2013). AFFIRMED