Ex Parte Fukunaga et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

11206851 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/206,851 08/19/2005 Toshiaki Fukunaga FS-F03653-01 7206
37398 7590 07/26/2012
TAIYO CORPORATION
401 HOLLAND LANE
Suite 407
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MERSHON, JAYNE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1728
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TOSHIAKI FUKUNAGA
and DAISUKE YOKOYAMA
__________

Appeal 2011-001070
Application 11/206,851
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001070
Application 11/206,851

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1 and 3-7. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is said to be directed to a solid-state image
pickup device which has a laminated type photoelectric conversion layer
(Spec. para. [0001]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A solid state image pickup device, comprising a
silicon substrate and a photoelectric conversion unit which
receives external incident light and generates signals in
accordance therewith, and which is formed on or above the
surface of the silicon substrate, wherein
a signal transmission circuit for reading out the signals
generated in the photoelectric conversion unit is formed on the
silicon substrate;
the photoelectric conversion unit comprises a
photoelectric conversion layer which comprises a laminated
structure of plural compound semiconductor layers which are
different from each other in light wavelength to absorb and are
provided within the laminated structure so that the shorter a
light absorption wavelength of a compound semiconductor
layer is, the closer to a light incident side the compound
semiconductor layer resides, and the laminated structure of the
first to third compound semiconductor layers are arranged in
the following order along a light-incident direction, wherein
the first compound semiconductor layer comprises an
InAlP layer;
the second compound semiconductor layer comprises an
InGaAlP layer; and
Appeal 2011-001070
Application 11/206,851

3
the third compound semiconductor layer comprises a
layer selected from an InGaP layer, a GaAs layer or an
InGaAsP layer and
the plural compound semiconductor layers are
respectively connected to pixel electrodes formed on the signal
transmission circuit.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aihara (JP 2003-234460 published Aug. 22, 2003)
in view of Usami (US 5,306,924 issued Apr. 26, 1994).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Aihara in view of Usami and Ouchi (US 6,261,859 B1 issued
July 17, 2001).
3. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Aihara in view of Usami and Toriyama
(US 5,336,919 issued Aug. 9, 1994).
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Aihara in view of Usami and Sugawara (US 6,590,233 B2 issued
July 8, 2003).

Appellants separately argue claim 1 only (App. Br. 12-17). Appellants
rely on arguments made regarding claim 1 with regard to rejections (2) to
(4). Accordingly, claims 3-7 will stand or fall with our analysis of the
rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2011-001070
Application 11/206,851

4
ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that the combination
of Aihara and Usami would have rendered obvious the subject matter of
claim 1? We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner’s construction of claim 1 may be found in various
portions of the Response to Argument section of the Answer (Ans. 10-18).
Specifically, the Examiner construes claim 1 as being open-ended and that
the term “layer” in claim 1 reasonably means three degrees of layers: (1) the
image pickup device composed of a substrate and photoelectric conversion
unit, (2) layers which form an individual photoelectric conversion junction
that converts a specific wavelength to energy and (3) the individual layers of
the photoelectric conversion junction (id. at 10). The Examiner explains that
the claim does not require that the first, second and third semiconductor
compounds are in direct contact or that these compounds are in separate
photoelectric conversion layers (id. at 17). Appellants do not challenge the
Examiner’s claim interpretation as unreasonable or inconsistent with the
Specification.
The Examiner finds that Aihara teaches the structure recited in claim
1, except for the particular claimed semiconductor layer materials (i.e.,
InAlP, InGaAlP, InGaP, GaAs or InGaAsP) (id. at 4-5). The Examiner finds
that Usami teaches a photoelectric layer structured as a quantum well
composed of layers of InAlP, InGaAlP and GaAs (id. at 5). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to substitute Usami’s quantum
well structure made of layers of InAlP, InGaAlP and GaAs for one of
Appeal 2011-001070
Application 11/206,851

5
Aihara’s photoelectric conversion layers such as the red layer because the
materials are well known in the art and the materials are known to improve
the ability of photodetectors/solid state image pickup devices (id. at 5, 13).
Appellants argue that it is improper for the Examiner to pick only
selected materials from Usami without taking into consideration Usami’s
disclosure of the particular order of layers to control lattice stress (App. Br.
13-14). However, the Examiner proposes substituting the entirety of
Usami’s layered structure for a layer in Aihara’s photoelectric conversion
layer. So, the Examiner has taken the particular ordering of the layers as
taught by Usami into account.
Appellants further contend that Table 1 on page 15 of the Appeal
Brief shows that Usami’s does not teach plural semiconductor layers that are
different from each other in light wavelength absorbed (App. Br. 16).
Appellants contend that Table 1 shows that the barrier and intermediate
layers have identical band gap energies and may absorb light having
identical wavelengths. Id.
Appellants’ arguments fail to appreciate that the Examiner relies on
Aihara to teach the plural semiconductor layers having different absorption
(Ans. 4-5; 16). Appellants’ argument fails to address what the combined
teachings of Aihara and Usami would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellants’ argument regarding the band gap energies of similar
layers fails to appreciate that the claim is open-ended and does not exclude
additional layers as properly construed by the Examiner. We note that
Appellants’ evidence further shows that the InAlP layer closest to the light
incident side absorbs a shorter wavelength (517 nm) then either the InGaAlP
Appeal 2011-001070
Application 11/206,851

6
barrier or well layers (539 nm or 620 nm) or GaAs substrate (867 nm) which
absorbs a longer wavelength (App. Br. 15).
Appellants argue that Usami’s quantum well contains cladding (53,
57), cap (58) and substrate (51) layers which are not semiconductive such
that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to substitute
Usami’s non-semiconductive layer for Aihara’s photoelectric conversion
layer (Reply Br. 4-5).
Usami discloses that clad layers 53 and 57 are made of InAlP, the cap
layer 58 is made of InGaP and substrate 51 is made of GaAs. Usami
discloses that GaAs is a semiconductor (col. 6, ll. 33-35). We further note
that InAlP and InGaP are two of the compounds claimed by Appellants,
which Appellants disclose to be semiconductors (Spec. para. [0009]).
Appellants have not shown that Usami’s InAlP and InGaP differ from
Appellants’ claimed InAlP and InGaP in any respect. Appellants’ arguments
are without persuasive merit.
For these reasons and on this record, we affirm all of the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

ORDER
AFFIRMED

bar