Ex Parte Beach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11322923 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT BEACH
____________________

Appeal 2010-008677
Application 11/322,923
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHNNY A.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008677
Application 11/322,923

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a Final
Rejection of claims 2-21, 25, 26, and 31-33, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant invented a III-nitride power semiconductor with a field
relaxation feature.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 2, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
2. A power semiconductor device comprising:
[1] a III-nitride based heterojunction, said heterojunction
including a first III- nitride layer having a band gap, and a
second III-nitride layer having another band gap over said first
III-nitride layer;
[2] a first power electrode electrically connected to said
second III-nitride layer;
[3] a second power electrode electrically connected to said
second III-nitride layer;
[4] a gate structure disposed between said first power
electrode and said second power electrode; and
[5] a field relaxation feature disposed over said second III-
nitride layer adjacent said gate structure wherein said field
relaxation feature includes an ultra resistive field plate
comprised of a semiconductor.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jan. 12, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 17, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 16, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Feb. 25, 2009).
Appeal 2010-008677
Application 11/322,923

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Zommer US 5,629,552 May 13, 1997
Lin
Saxler
Parikh
Saito
US 2002/0079521 A1
US 2004/0061129 A1
US 2005/0051796 A1
US 2005/0274977 A1
Jun. 27, 2002
Apr. 1, 2004
Mar. 10, 2005
Dec. 15, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 2-7 and 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Saxler.
Claims 14-20, 25, 26, and 31-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito, Lin, and Zommer.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saito and Parikh.
Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Saxler, Lin, and Zommer.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims turns on
whether the cited prior art describes “a field relaxation feature comprising a
field plate adjacent to a gate structure,” “said gate structure is disposed on
said field plate and said second III-nitride layer,” the “exclusive use of
floating guard rings to achieve a field relaxation effect,” and whether “the
single guard ring in Saito cannot reasonably be characterized as adjacent to
the gate contact, due to interposition of an insulating material.” App. Br. 10,
12, 13.
Appeal 2010-008677
Application 11/322,923

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 2-7 and 9-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated
by Saxler
The Appellant contends that Saxler fails to disclose “a field relaxation
feature comprising a field plate adjacent to a gate structure” because Saxler
“expresses no interest in specifically reducing electric field intensity
between the gate and drain contact,” as per claim 2. App. Br. 8-10 and
Reply Br. 4-8. We disagree with the Appellant. As found by the Examiner,
Saxler discloses an additional layer that comprises SiNx or a relatively high
quality AlN, which describes a field plate comprised of a semiconductor.
Ans. 5-6 (citing Saxler ¶ 0041 and Fig. 2). That is, Saxler describes the
same structure and material as recited in claim 2. We further agree with the
Examiner that the Appellant’s contention that Saxler “expresses no interest
in specifically reducing electric field intensity between the gate and drain
contact” is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. We remind the
Appellant that our reviewing court has indicated that while features of an
Appeal 2010-008677
Application 11/322,923

5
apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed
to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure
rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
We also do not agree with the Appellant’s contention that Saxler does
not describe “wherein said gate structure is disposed on said field plate and
said second III-nitride layer,” as per claim 4. App. Br. 10-11. As found by
the Examiner, Saxler describes a gate structure that is on the additional layer
or field plate and the first cap layer or the second layer. Ans. 23-25 (citing
Saxler Fig. 2).

Claims 14-20, 25, 26, and 31-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Saito, Lin, and Zommer
The Appellant contends that the combination of Saito, Lin, and
Zommer fails to teach or suggest the “exclusive use of floating guard rings
to achieve a field relaxation effect.” App. Br. 12-13 and Reply Br. 8-10.
The Appellant agrees that Zommer describes “a combination of floating and
non-floating guard rings.” App. Br. 13 (citing Zommer 8:48-67). However,
we are unpersauded by this contention because the Appellant again is
arguing limitations that are not required by the claims. In other words,
claim 14 does not require that all of the guard rings must exclusively be
floating.
The Appellant further contends that a person with ordinary skill in the
art would not have been motivated to combine Saito, Lin, and Zommer.
App. Br. 13 and Reply Br. 8-10. The Examiner has fully responded to this
argument. Ans. 25-26. We agree with the Examiner and accordingly adopt
Appeal 2010-008677
Application 11/322,923

6
the Examiner’s findings and analysis, and reach the same legal conclusion as
the Examiner.

Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito
and Parikh
The Appellant contends that “the single guard ring in Saito cannot
reasonably be characterized as adjacent to the gate contact, due to
interposition of an insulating material.” App. Br. 14-16. The Examiner
found that the term “adjacent” encompasses “not distant; nearby,” and
accordingly Saito describes the guard rings are “adjacent” to the gate
contact. Ans. 26-28. We agree with the Examiner’s claim construction and
accordingly agree that the combination of Saito and Parikh describe this
limitation.

Claims 8 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Saxler, Lin, and Zommer
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8
and 13 for the same reasons asserted in support of claim 2. App. Br. 16. We
disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments in support of
claim 2 were not found to be persuasive supra and are not found to be
persuasive here for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-21, 25, 26, and 31-33.
Appeal 2010-008677
Application 11/322,923

7

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 2-21, 25, 26, and 31-33 is sustained.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

tj