Ex Parte Ha et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

10396312 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

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.
10/396,312 03/26/2003 Yong-Min Ha 8734.166.00 - US 6775
30827 7590 07/27/2012
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP
1900 K STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
EXAMINER
HERNANDEZ, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2816
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2012 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 YONG-MIN HA, KEE-JONG KIM, and BYEOUNG-KOO KIM
____________________

Appeal 2009-014336
Application 10/396,312
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014336
Application 10/396,312

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-10, 30-39, 59-67, and 90-92. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for reducing an OFF -current of a field effect
transistor having a gate electrode, a silicon layer, a source electrode,
and a drain electrode, comprising:
applying a DC voltage to the gate electrode to turn the field
effect transistor OFF;
grounding the source electrode; and
applying an AC voltage pulse to the drain electrode at least
once, wherein a voltage difference between the DC voltage and a
minimum voltage of the AC voltage pulse is greater than a voltage
difference between the DC voltage and a grounding voltage.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 8-10, 30, 34, 37-39, and 90
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Uchino (JP 55-93322).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2-4, 6, 7, 31-33, 35, 36, 59-67,
91, and 92 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Uchino or
the combination of Uchino and Yamazaki (US 6,894,312 B2).
Appeal 2009-014336
Application 10/396,312

3
Appellants’ Contentions1
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because:
Uchino does not disclose "a voltage difference between the DC
voltage and a minimum voltage of the AC voltage pulse is
greater than a voltage difference between the DC voltage and a
grounding voltage." The Examiner alleges that the first negative
value minus a second negative value will always be greater than
the first negative value minus zero. However, "a voltage
difference" refers to a magnitude and hence always has a
positive value or is zero. Accordingly, Uchino is completely
silent with regard to the voltage difference relationship such as
"a voltage difference between the DC voltage and a minimum
voltage of the AC voltage pulse is greater than a voltage
difference between the DC voltage and a grounding voltage"
recited by independent claim 1. Uchino does not anticipate
claim 1 for at least this reason.
(App. Br. 10).
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
Further, Appellants submit that Uchino does not disclose
"grounding the source electrode." In the Office Action, the
Examiner cites Uchino as disclosing "grounding the source
electrode (via resistor 3)". Appellants respectfully disagree with
the Examiner's conclusion regarding the disclosure of Uchino.
While Figures 1 and 2 of Uchino show a resistor 3 connected
between ground potential and a terminal of an FET 21,
Appellants respectfully submit that connection to ground
through a component such as a resistor that can maintain a
significant voltage drop across the component does not
constitute grounding.
(App. Br. 10).

1 One or both of these same contentions or an analogous contention is
separately presented for each independent claim on appeal.
Appeal 2009-014336
Application 10/396,312

4
Issue on Appeal
Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting 1-10, 30-39, 59-67, and
90-92 because Uchino fails to disclose the argued claim limitations?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ above contentions. The Examiner has
erred in finding that Uchino teaches the limitations argued in above
contentions 1 and 2.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 5, 8-10, 30, 34, 37-39, and 90 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
(2) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2-4, 6, 7, 31-33, 35, 36, 59-67, 91, and 92 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) On this record, claims 1-10, 30-39, 59-67, and 90-92 have not
been shown to be unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-10, 30-39, 59-67, and 90-92 are
reversed.

REVERSED

Appeal 2009-014336
Application 10/396,312

5

ELD