Ex Parte Bibl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14312554 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/312,554 06/23/2014
150365 7590 12/26/2018
APPLE-J /Jaffery Watson Mendonsa & Hamilton
7501 Village Square Drive
Suite 206
Castle Rock, CO 80108
Andreas Bibi
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.
026057 .P24356USC6 4250
EXAMINER
NADAV,ORI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2811
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
apple@jwmhlaw.com
jacob.aikin@jwmhlaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS BIBL, JOHN A. HIGGINSON,
HUNG-PAI STEPHEN LAW, and HSIN-HUA HU
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
DEBRAL. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14--23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification filed June 23, 2014 ("Spec.");
the Final Action dated July 19, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Advisory Action
dated September 25, 2017 ("Adv. Act."); the Appeal Brief filed December
14, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer dated January 29, 2018
("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed March 23, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant and real party in interest, Apple Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
The claims are directed to micro LED display. Claim 1, reproduced
below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed
subject matter:
1. A display substrate comprising:
a plurality of separate micro LED devices bonded to a
corresponding plurality of separate driver contacts; and
a common contact line formed of a transparent material
directly over and in electrical contact with a top surface of each
of the plurality of separate micro LED devices, wherein each of
the plurality of separate micro LED devices comprises:
a p-n diode including:
a bottom surface directly beneath the top surface;
a p-doped layer;
an n-doped layer; and
a quantum well layer between then-doped layer
and the p-doped layer;
wherein the p-n diode is less than 3 µm thick and
less than 10 µm wide; and
a lower metallization layer including a top surface and a
bottom surface, wherein the top surface of the lower
metallization layer is underneath the bottom surface of the p-n
diode, and the bottom surface of the lower metallization layer is
directly over and bonded to a corresponding driver contact;
wherein a maximum thickness between the top surface of
the p-n diode and the bottom surface of the lower metallization
layer is less than 5 µm.
2
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Heremans et al. US 2005/0110033 Al May 26, 2005
("Heremans")
Okuyama et al. US 7,250,320 B2 July 31, 2007
("Okuyama")
I wafuchi et al. US 2009/0103292 Al Apr. 23, 2009
("I wafuchi")
Lee et al. ("Lee") US 2010/0176415 Al July 15, 2010
Samuelson et al. US 2010/0283064 Al Nov. 11, 2010
("Samuelson")
Zheng et al. US 2011/0297914 Al Dec. 8, 2011
("Zheng")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following
rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103: (1) claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14--23 as
unpatentable over Okuyama in view of Lee, I wafuchi, Heremans, and
Samuelson; and (2) claims 19 and 20 as unpatentable over Okuyama in view
of Lee, Iwafuchi, Heremans, and Samuelson, and further in view of Zheng.
Final Act. 3-9; App. Br. 5-16.
OPINION
Our decision in the appeal turns on whether the prior art teaches the
limitation "wherein the p-n diode is less than 3 µm thick." See App. Br. 18
(Claims App'x).
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds that Okuyama "do[es]
not teach the size of the p-n diode," among other limitations, but that
Heremans teaches a thin-film light emitting diode (LED) having a thickness
3
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
of 0.5 to 5 microns (µm). Final Act. 4. In the Answer, however, in addition
to finding that Heremans teaches the p-n diode thickness, the Examiner finds
that Okuyama meets the limitation "wherein the p-n diode is less than 3 µm
thick" if part of the thickness of the p-n diode disclosed in the reference is
less than 3 µm. Ans. 3, 7-8.
Appellant argues that Okuyama does not disclose a p-n diode that is
less than 3 µm thick, and Heremans is not combinable with Okuyama. App.
Br. 6-12; Reply Br. 3-5, 7-8.
Figure 13 of Okuyama is reproduced below:
13'"'
l 7(p)
16
, 1 S{n)
14
Figure 13 is a cross-sectional view showing a GaN-based light
emitting diode according to an embodiment of Okuyama's invention.
Okuyama, col. 11, 11. 51-5 3. The elements shown in Figure 13 are p-side
electrode 183, p-type GaN layer 174 , active layer 16, n-type GaN layer 15,
growth mask 14, n-type GaN layer 12, and n-side electrode 19. Id. at col.
13, 11. 9, 51, col. 17, 11. 7-26.
3 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, labels to elements are present in bold
font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4 Okuyama identifies the p-type layer alternatively as element 17 or 17(b ),
then-type layer as 15 or 15(n), and another n-type layer as 12 or 12(n).
Okuyama, Fig. 5B, col. 12, 1. 35, col. 13, 11. 50---51.
4
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
The Examiner finds that the p-n diode disclosed by Okuyama
comprises layers 15(n), 16, and 17(p ), but does not include element 12(n),
one of two n-type layers (15 and 12(n)) described. Ans. 3, 10 ("then-type
layer 12(n) is not part of the p-n diode of Okuyama"). The Examiner also
finds that "if part of the thickness of the p-n diode ofOkuyama ... is less
than 3 microns, then it meets the requirement" of claim 1. Id. at 3 ( emphasis
added).
We disagree with both of these findings.
As to the first finding, Okuyama teaches a manufacturing method of a
GaN-based light emitting diode that includes growing n-type GaN layer 12
on a sapphire substrate, wherein the n-type GaN layer 12 has a thickness of
around 2 microns. Okuyama, col. 12, 11. 31--40. Next, a Si02 film and a SiN
film are formed on n-type GaN layer 12, a resist pattern is formed, and the
films are etched and patterned to a growth mask 14. Id. at col. 12, 11. 50-59.
After an opening 13 is formed, n-type GaN layer 15 is grown in layer 12
exposed through the opening 13 in the growth mask 14. Id. at col. 13, 11. 6-
9. Active layer 16 and p-type GaN layer 17 are then sequentially grown on
sapphire substrate 11. Id. at col. 13, 11. 45--49. Okuyama, thus, teaches that
n-type layer 12 is part of the light emitting diode.
The second finding (that the thickness limitation is met if part of the
thickness of Okuyama' s p-n diode is less than 3 microns) requires us to
determine the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation. In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("During
[prosecution], 'claims ... are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, and ... claim language
should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
5
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
of ordinary skill in the art."') (Quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833 (Fed.
Cir. 1990)). Nothing in the Specification suggests that "wherein the p-n
diode is less than 3 µm thick" refers to the thickness of only a part or portion
of the p-n diode. See Spec. generally. One of ordinary skill in the art would
understand the limitation to refer to the maximum thickness of the entire p-n
diode. In Okuyama, this thickness extents from the highest point of p-type
GaN layer 17 (as depicted in Fig. 13 above) to the far side of n-type layer
12.
Okuyama discloses growth of n-type layer 15 as selective growth of a
six-sided steeple-shaped layer composed of a plurality of crystal planes
inclined from the major surface of the sapphire substrate 11 by different
angles of inclination from each other. Okuyama, col. 13, 11. 20-26. These
crystal planes are illustrated in Okuyama's Figure 3B reproduced below:
Figure 3B is a cross-sectional view for explaining the manufacturing
method of the GaN-based light emitting diode. Id. at col. 11, 11. 1--4. The
Figure shows four crystal planes (F1, F2, F3, and F4) which together make up
a convex inclined plane. Id. at col. 13, 11. 26-28. Crystal plane F1 ofn-type
layer 15 is between 2 µm and 4 µm. Id. at col. 15, 11. 20-39.
Okuyama discloses that 2 µm will be enough thickness for n-type
layer 12 in most cases. Id. at col. 12, 11. 38--40. Okuyama, thus, teaches that
6
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
the combined thickness of n-type layer 12 and part of n-type layer 15alone,
without consideration of the entire n-type layer 15, active layer 16, or p-type
layer 17, is 4 microns, which is outside the "less than 3 µm thick" limit of
claim 1. Okuyama does not disclose the limitation.
Appellant persuasively argues that the Examiner reversibly errs in
concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
Okuyama's p-n diode with Heremans' disclosure of a thin-film LED having
a thickness of 0.5 to 5 microns (Final Act. 4). App. Br. 8-12; Reply Br. 7-8.
The Examiner concludes that one would not have to modify Okuyama's
design, but only execute it in a smaller scale. Ans. 7-8. We are provided no
explanation of how the skilled artisan would accomplish this goal, but told
that there would be a reasonable expectation of success, given that "it is well
known in the art that the general trend in the semiconductor industry is to
miniaturize the size of semiconductor devices." Id. at 7. This explanation
falls short of the requirements for supporting an obviousness rejection. See
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements;
instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.").
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14--23
over Okuyama in view of Lee, Iwafuchi, Heremans, and Samuelson. The
rejection of claims 19 and 20 over Okuyama in view of Lee, Iwafuchi,
Heremans, and Samuelson, and further in view of Zheng rely on the same
flawed reasoning, and we do not sustain the rejection.
7
Appeal2018-004856
Application 14/312,554
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14--23 is reversed.
REVERSED
8