13506629 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2017)

Ex Parte Feng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 2, 2017

13506629 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2017)

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. 13/506,629 05/02/2012 Dazeng Feng LT3700 9512 7590 08/02/2017 Travis Dodd GAVRILOVICH, DODD & LINDSEY, LLP 2490 Heyneman Hollow Fallbrook, CA 92028 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TUAN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2828 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAZENG FENG, MEHDI ASGHARI, and BRADLEY JONATHAN LUFF Appeal 2016-007630 Application 13/506,629 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ rejection of claims 1 and 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim an optical device. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An optical device, comprising: a laser positioned on a base, the laser including a ridge of a gain medium positioned on the base such that the base extends out from under the ridge, the ridge including a top that connects lateral sides of the ridge; and electronics configured to drive an electrical current through the ridge such that the electrical current passes through one or more of the lateral sides of the ridge. Appeal 2016-007630 Application 13/506,629 The Reference Liao US 2011/0068425 A1 Mar. 24,2011 The Rejection Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Liao. OPINION We reverse the rejection. We need address only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 1. That claim requires a laser including a ridge of a gain medium. Liao discloses an optical device comprising a light sensor (29) including a light-absorbing medium (32) having a slab region with a ridge (22) extending therefrom flflf 7, 32, 36, 37; Figs. 1A, IB, 2C). Suitable light-absorbing media include “germanium, silicon germanium, silicon germanium quantum well, GaAs, and In P” (135). A waveguide (16) comprising a light-transmitting medium (18) having a slab region with a ridge (22) extending therefrom guides a light signal in either or both directions between the light-absorbing medium (32) and an optical component (17) which can be a laser (|| 7, 21, 28, 29; Figs. 1A, 1C). Suitable light-transmitting media include “silicon, polymers, silica, SiN, GaAs, In P and LiNbCL” (| 29). “The light sensor [29] is configured to convert the light signal to an electrical signal” (131). The Examiner appears to find that the Appellants define their claim term “laser” broadly as a device comprising germanium, silicon-germanium or group IV gain medium material and that, therefore, that term encompasses Liao’s light sensor (29) having a germanium or silicon-germanium light-absorbing medium (32) (Ans. 4—7). 2 Appeal 2016-007630 Application 13/506,629 The Appellants do not define “laser” as any device comprising a material such as germanium or silicon-germanium that can be a laser gain medium material but, rather, merely disclose that germanium or silicon-germanium can be a suitable gain medium material in their laser (Spec. 1119, 57). The Examiner finds, based upon Liao’s disclosures in paragraphs 28 and 29, that “Liao et al. ‘425 did teach ‘waveguide(s) on a base’ that function as ‘a laser’ where different light signal on different waveguides” (Ans. 6) and that “Liao et al. ‘425 teaches at least one structure ‘a laser’ modulating the amplified light signal, while the second structure ‘the light sensor’ convert light signal into electrical signal” (id.). Liao’s list of exemplified optical components (17), which includes “lasers that act [as] a source of light signal” and “modulators for modulating a signal into a light signal” (128), is not a disclosure that Liao’s waveguide (16) can function as a laser (or that the modulator is a laser). The Examiner appears to conclude that the Appellants’ claim 1 does not require that the laser includes a resonator or produces coherent light and that, therefore, the Appellants’ claim term “laser” encompasses Liao’s light sensor (Ans. 5). A laser is “[a]n active device that converts input power into a very narrow intense beam of coherent visible or infrared light; the input power excites the atoms of an optical resonator into a higher energy level, and the resonator forces the excited atoms to radiate in phase.” 1 Thus, a laser has a resonator and emits coherent light. 1 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1111 (5th ed., McGraw-Hill 1994). 3 Appeal 2016-007630 Application 13/506,629 The Examiner finds that “it is well known of the use of active gain in quantum well in laser material, and it is within one skill in the art to recognize Liao et al. ‘425 capable of using known materials and/or SiGe quantum well as a gain medium to have a laser that employ group III-V materials which could acts as a laser with gain, which is the same as disclosed by the current application Section [0002] known laser employ group III-V materials as gain medium)'1'’ (Final Act. 3—4). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner’s assertion that modifying Liao’s light sensor (29) such that it is a laser is “within one skill in the art” does not establish that Liao would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to make that modification. Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants’ claimed optical device. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Liao is reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED 4