Ex Parte Ha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2013

11591515 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KYOUNG-HO HA and HAN-YOUL RYU
____________________

Appeal 2011-003540
Application 11/591,515
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-21, and 23-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2011-003540
Application 11/591,515

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a semiconductor laser
device having a metal contact layer and a conductive metal-based material as
a clad layer, rather than an AlGaN-based material, and a method of
fabricating the same (Spec. 1:14-18).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A semiconductor laser device comprising:

an active region;

a nitride semiconductor layer formed on the active
region;

a ridge-shaped metal layer formed on the nitride
semiconductor layer;

a ridge-shaped metal-based clad layer formed on the
metal layer; and

a p-electrode layer formed on the metal-based clad layer.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS1
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8, 10-17, 19-21, and 23-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Dwilinski (US Pat. App.
Pub. No. 2005/0249255 A1), Kneissl (US 6,990,132 B2), and Ming-Jiunn
(US 6,078,064).

1 The Examiner noted, in the Advisory Action mailed August 23, 2010, the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, would not be maintained
in the Examiner’s Answer.
Appeal 2011-003540
Application 11/591,515

3
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Dwilinski, Kneissl, Ming-Jiunn, and Nomura
(US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0047458 A1).
The Examiner rejected claims 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings Dwilinski, Kneissl, Ming-Jiunn, and Buda (US 7,251,381
B2).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend an ordinarily skilled artisan would not consider
including a contact layer of Ming-Jiunn between a metal-based clad layer
and a nitride semiconductor because Ming-Jiunn discloses a contact layer
formed on a cladding layer and not a ridge-shaped metal layer formed on a
metal nitride semiconductor layer as claimed (App. Br. 11). Appellants also
contend Ming-Jiunn does not disclose a ridge shaped configuration (id.).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, it would have been obvious to an
ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellants’ invention, to combine the
metal layer taught by Ming-Jiunn with the combination of Dwilinski and
Kneissl to provide a contact layer at an interface between a metal oxide
cladding layer (Ans. 6).
We decline Appellants’ invitation to read limitations found in the
Specification into the claims (App. Br. 12). We also do not agree with
Appellants’ contentions that Ming-Jiunn, Kneissl, or Dwilinski do not
suggest forming a ridge (App. Br. 12, 13 (with respect to claim 21)). The
claims as written are broad and the term “ridge” is not defined in Appellants’
Specification. The, we agree with the Examiner Ming-Jiunn discloses a ridge
configuration and Kneissl and Dwilinski disclose a ridge shaped interface
Appeal 2011-003540
Application 11/591,515

4
(Ans. 11-12). Further, Appellants ask us to consider arguments in the Reply
Brief that could have been presented in the Principal Brief on Appeal, but
were not (see Reply Br. 4-8). In the absence of a showing of good cause, we
conclude the regulations set out in 37 C.F.R. § 41, Practice Before the
[Patent Trial and Appeal Board] (“Board”), do not require the Board to
consider such belated arguments. (See Ex Parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473
(BPAI 2010) (Informative)).
With respect to claims 9, 18, 21, 23, and 27-29, separately argued
(App. Br. 12-15, Reply Br. 7-8), we agree with the Examiner’s findings and
adopt them as our own (Ans. 12-13).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s factual findings and ultimate
conclusion of obviousness (See Ans. 11-13). On this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner’s reading of the claims on the cited combination of
references is overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the
Specification. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 and claims 2-6, 8-21, and 23-29.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-21, and 23-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh/llw