Ex Parte Grundmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

13882744 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

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.
13/882,744 03/20/2014 Michael Jason Grundmann 2010P00636WOUS 6506
146777 7590
Volpe & Koenig (Lumileds)
30 South 17th Street
Suite 1800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
EXAMINER
TRAN, DZUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2018 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):
Patents@vklaw.com
IPG_Docketing@lumileds.com
Paralegal@convergenceiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL JASON GRUNDMANN,
NATHAN FREDERICK GARDNER, WERNER KARL GOETZ,
MELVIN BARKER MCLAURIN, JOHN EDWARD EPLER,
and FRANCISCO ALEXANDER LEON
Appeal 2017-001968
Application 13/882,744
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JULIA HEANEY, and JEFFREY R. SNAY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1,3,4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 16-19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed May 1, 2013; Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”) dated August 7, 2015; Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) dated April 25, 2016; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated
September 16, 2016, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) dated
November 15, 2016.
2 Appellants identify Lumileds LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001968
Application 13/882,744
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a Ill-nitride light emitting device and methods
for its production involving growth of lattice-matched Ill-nitride layers on a
substrate. Spec. ^ 1. Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
growing a Ill-nitride structure grown on a substrate, the
Ill-nitride structure comprising a light emitting layer disposed
between an n-type region and a p-type region, wherein the III-
nitride structure comprises a region including only ternary,
quaternary, and/or quinary Ill-nitride layers and the region
including only ternary, quaternary, and/or quinary Ill-nitride
layers is thicker than 2 jam;
attaching the Ill-nitride structure to a mount; and
removing the substrate, wherein:
the substrate is RA03(MO)n, where R is one of a trivalent
cation, Sc, In, Y, and a lanthanide; A is one of a trivalent
cation, Fe (III), Ga, and Al; M is one of a divalent cation, Mg,
Mn, Fe (II), Co, Cu, Zn and Cd; and n is an integer > 1;
the substrate has an in-plane lattice constant aSUbstrate;
at least one Ill-nitride layer in the Ill-nitride structure has
a bulk lattice constant aiayer;
and
[(|asubstrate aiayaj)/asubsiraic]* 100% is no more than 1%.
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight the recitation
in dispute).
Independent claim 16 is directed to a device comprising, inter alia,
the Ill-nitride structure recited in claim 1.
2
Appeal 2017-001968
Application 13/882,744
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1,3,4, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brandle3 and Krames.4
II. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brandle, Krames, and Oku.5
III. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Brandle, Krames, Oku, and Heilman.6
IV. Claims 12, 13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Brandle, Krames, and Kyono.7
OPINION
Rejection I
Appellants argue the claims as a group, focusing the arguments on the
same recitation found in each of the independent claims. App. Br. 5-8. In
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 1 as
representative and decide the appeal based on the representative claim alone.
Relevant to Appellants’ arguments on appeal, the Examiner finds that
Brandle discloses a method which includes growing a Ill-nitride structure,
and teaches that Ill-nitride materials suitable for that purpose include ternary
and quaternary Ill-nitrides. Final Act. 3 (citing Brandle 3:1-5). The
Examiner also finds that Brandle exemplifies a film having a 2pm thickness,
3 US 5,530,267, issued June 25, 1996 (“Brandle”).
4 US 2007/0072324 Al, published March 29, 2007 (“Krames”).
5 US 2003/0132440 Al, published July 17, 2003 (“Oku”).
6 Heilman, E.S. et al., “ScAlMg04: An Oxide Substrate for GaN Epitaxy,”
Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., Vol. 395 (1996), pp. 51-54 (“Heilman”).
7 US 2008/0035910 Al, published February 14, 2008 (“Kyono”).
3
Appeal 2017-001968
Application 13/882,744
and that Krames exemplifies a Ill-nitride structure having a thickness that is
greater than 2pm. Final Act. 3 (citing Brandle 5:60-65, Krames 23-25).
Appellants argue that Brandle’s identification of ternary and
quaternary Ill-nitrides occurs in a list that also includes binary materials.
App. Br. 5-6 (citing Brandle 3:1-5). In their Reply Brief, Appellants point
to a working example in Brandle that describes an exemplary LED structure
that includes both binary and ternary Ill-nitride materials. Reply Br. 1-2
(citing Brandle 6:10^40). On these bases, Appellants argue that Brandle
lacks a teaching of a region that includes only ternary, quaternary, and/or
quinary Ill-nitride layers, as claimed. App. Br. 6.
The contested passage in Brandle reads as follows:
The III-V nitride semiconductor material is selected from GaN,
AIN, InN, GaAIN, GalnN, AlInN and GaAlInN, with or
without substitution of a minor amount (up to the solubility
limit, typically<10 wt. %) of As or P for N, and with or without
dopants.
Brandle 3:1-5. There is no dispute that the above-listed nitrides include
ternary (GaAIN, GalnN, and AlInN) and quaternary (GaAlInN) Ill-nitrides.
The fact that Brandle also lists binary nitrides does not negate the express
teaching that the above-mentioned ternary and quaternary nitrides were
suitable. Brandle’s description of binary materials in a working example is
neither inconsistent with nor limiting on the above-quoted listing of suitable
Ill-nitride materials. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972) (“All
the disclosures in a reference must be evaluated, including nonpreferred
embodiments, and a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific
working examples.”) (internal citations omitted). Brandle’s identification of
suitable ternary and quaternary Ill-nitride materials is persuasive evidence
4
Appeal 2017-001968
Application 13/882,744
that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to select one or more of
those materials to form Brandle’s Ill-nitride structure.
Appellants also argue that Krames’ teaching of epitaxial regions
greater than 2 pm in thickness “contains no teaching that the greater than 2
pm thick epitaxial region is only ternary, quaternary, and/or quinary III-
nitride layers, NOT binary Ill-nitride layers.” App. Br. 6. However, as
noted, the Examiner relies on Brandle as evidence that it was known to use
ternary and/or quaternary Ill-nitride materials to form a light-emitting III-
nitride structure. Brandle states that “crystal quality of III-V nitride films
generally improves with increasing film thickness” (Brandle 5:61-63), and
Krames recognizes film thicknesses greater than 2 pm as desirable (Krames
^ 25). Appellants acknowledge that Ill-nitride regions thicker than 2 pm are
known. App. Br. 6. On this appeal record, we are persuaded that a
preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that one of
ordinary skill would have had a reason to form Brandle’s Ill-nitride structure
with a thickness exceeding 2 pm.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of reversible
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, Rejection I is
sustained.
Rejections II-IV
Appellants do not present evidence in support of any separate
argument against Rejections II-IV except to rely on the arguments made in
connection with claim 1. Accordingly, Rejections II-IV also are sustained.
5
Appeal 2017-001968
Application 13/882,744
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and
16-19 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(a).
AFFIRMED
6