11314178 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

Ex Parte Asano et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 18, 2012

11314178 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte TETSURO ASANO and MIKITO SAKAKIBARA ____________________ Appeal 2010-004569 Application 11/314,1781 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before: MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. Appeal 2010-004569 Application 11/314,178 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ invention concerns a compound semiconductor switch circuit device in which insertion loss is reduced. A high-resistance element that has a resistance higher than an average resistance of the connecting path is disposed between the protecting element and the control terminal pad with which the connecting path is connected (Spec. 1, 17). A copy of independent claim 1, appended to this decision, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Nambu US Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0098477 A1 May 29, 2003 Asano ‘469 US Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0222469 A1 Nov. 11, 2004 Asano ‘822 US Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0263822 A1 Dec. 1, 2005 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Asano ‘469. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano ‘469 and Nambu. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Asano ‘469, Nambu, and Asano ‘822. Appeal 2010-004569 Application 11/314,178 3 ISSUE Appellants argue, inter alia, that Asano ‘469 does not teach a high- resistance element disposed between the protecting element and the control terminal pad. Appellants point out that n-type impurity region CN, disclosed as “high in sheet resistance,” is placed between Asano ‘469’s protecting element 200 and the gate of FET1, rather than between protecting element 200 and control terminal pad C1 (or C2) (App. Br. 6). Appellants’ argument presents us with the following issue: Does Asano ‘469 teach a high-resistance element disposed between the protecting element and the control terminal pad? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Asano ‘469 teaches an N-type impurity region CN, which is high in sheet resistance, that forms part of resistors R1 and R2 (Ans. 4, citing Asano ‘469 ¶ [0076]). App App first resis Claim prote eal 2010-0 lication 11 Figure 6 embodime The Exa tance elem We find 1 requir cting elem 04569 /314,178 of Asano nt of the i miner find ent” of in error in th es the “hig ent and th is a plan v nvention. s that regi dependent e Examine h-resistan e control t 4 iew of the on(s) CN c claim 1 (A r’s finding ce element erminal pa semicond orrespond ns. 4, 10) of anticip ” to be “d d.” Asano uctor devi s to the “h . ation, how isposed be ‘469 teac ce of the igh- ever. tween the hes Appeal 2010-004569 Application 11/314,178 5 protecting elements 200 (“lightning bolt” elements) and control terminal pads C1, C2 (Fig. 6). Asano ‘469’s high-resistance element CN, then, is disposed between a protecting element and field effect transistor FET1 or FET2 (id.). Region CN is not disposed between the protecting element and the control terminal pad. As a result, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Asano ‘469. We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. We have reviewed Nambu and Asano ‘822 and find that they do not remedy the deficiencies of Asano ‘469. Therefore, we will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, and 8 as being unpatentable over Asano ‘469 in view of Nambu. We will not sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Asano ‘469 in view of Nambu and Asano ‘822. CONCLUSION Asano ‘469 does not teach a high-resistance element disposed between the protecting element and the control terminal pad. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-12 is reversed. REVERSED tkl Appeal 2010-004569 Application 11/314,178 6 APPENDIX Claim 1 1. A compound semiconductor switch circuit device comprising: two or more switching elements formed on a compound semiconductor substrate, each of the switching elements comprising at least one gate, a signal input portion and a signal output portion; a common input terminal pad formed on the substrate and connected with the signal input portions of the switching elements; an output terminal pad provided for each of the switching elements and connected with a corresponding signal output portion, the output terminal pads being formed on the substrate; a control terminal pad provided for each of the switching elements and connected with a corresponding gate, the control terminal pads being formed on the substrate; a connecting path connecting one of the control terminal pads and a corresponding gate; and a protecting element connected between the common input terminal pad and the connecting path and comprising a first conduction region, a second conduction region and an insulating region disposed between the first and second conduction regions, wherein the connecting path comprises a high-resistance element that has a resistance higher than an average resistance of the connecting path and is disposed between the protecting element and the control terminal pad with which the connecting path is connected.