Ex Parte Koelle

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2012

11207481 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BERNHARD ULRICH KOELLE
____________________

Appeal 2009-012663
Application 11/207,481
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, TREVOR JEFFERSON, AND
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012663
Application 11/207,481

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
16-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 16 under appeal reads as follows:
16. A vertical cavity surface emitting laser system comprising:
a silicon substrate;
a bottom mirror on top of the substrate;
a bottom spacer layer on top of the bottom mirror;
an active layer on top of the bottom spacer;
an epitaxially grown top spacer layer on top of the active layer;
wherein the epitaxially grown top spacer layer is doped with a
first dopant and includes:
a first top spacer layer of a first predetermined height;
a second top spacer layer of a second predetermined
height; and
a third top spacer layer of a third predetermined height;
the active layer below the epitaxially grown top spacer layer
includes a quantum well; and
the bottom spacer layer below the active layer is doped with a
second dopant complementary to the first dopant.

Appeal 2009-012663
Application 11/207,481

3
Rejections on Appeal
1

The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Wang (US 2003/0123507),
Roberson (US 6,680,788), Devine (US 2004/0042737), Eisenbeiser
(US 2002/0167981), and Hwang (US 2003/0185267).
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16
because:
Regarding independent claim 16, neither Wang,
Roberson, Devine, Eisenbeiser nor Hwang either in
combination or individually teach or suggest an epitaxially
grown top spacer layer that is doped with a first dopant and
includes a first top spacer layer of a first predetermined height,
a second top spacer layer of a second predetermined height and
a third top spacer layer of a third predetermined height.
(App. Br. 8).

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 16 as being obvious because
the references fail to teach or suggest “an epitaxially grown top spacer layer
that is doped with a first dopant and includes a first top spacer layer of a first
predetermined height, a second top spacer layer of a second predetermined
height and a third top spacer layer of a third predetermined height”?

1
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 17 and 18. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2009-012663
Application 11/207,481

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 8-9) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 16-18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 16-18 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-18 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

tj