Ex Parte Ma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2017

13474408 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2017)

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.
13/474,408 05/17/2012 Zhenqiang Ma 00300-0153-03 1119
96854 7590
Bell & Manning, LLC
2801 West Beltline Highway
Ste. 210
Madison, WI 53713
EXAMINER
YUSHIN, NIKOLAY K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2893
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2017 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):
docketing @ bellmanning, com
cbell @ bellmanning. com
pporembski @ bellmanning. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHENQIANG MA and WEIDONG ZHOU
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—9, 11—13, and 15—20,3 which constitute
all the pending claims in the pending application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Specification filed May 17, 2012 (“Spec.”),
the Final Office Action mailed April 3, 2015 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief
filed August 7, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed January
11, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed March 9, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Wisconsin Alumni Research
Foundation and the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System.
Appeal Br. 3.
3 Claim 21 was cancelled in the Amendment and Reply under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.116 filed June 2, 2015.
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
The subject matter on appeal relates to hybrid vertical cavity light
sources, such as vertical cavity surface emitting lasers (VCSELs), based on
stacked semiconductor membranes and Fano resonance based reflectors.
Spec. 13. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A vertical cavity light emitting source comprising:
(a) a lower reflector comprising a first patterned
membrane comprising an array of holes patterned into a layer of
semiconductor;
(b) an active region disposed over the lower reflector,
wherein the active region is separated from the lower reflector
by at least one intra-cavity electrically conductive metal contact
disposed between an outermost surface of the active region and
the lower reflector, and further wherein the active region
comprises a light-emitting region, a first cladding layer, a
second cladding layer, a first contact layer comprising a doped
semiconductor and a second contact layer comprising a doped
semiconductor, wherein the light-emitting region is between the
first and second cladding layers and the first and second
cladding layers are between the first and second contact layers;
and
(c) an upper reflector comprising a second patterned
membrane comprising an array of holes patterned into a layer of
semiconductor disposed over the active region, wherein the
upper reflector is separated from the active region by at least
one intra-cavity electrically conductive metal contact disposed
between the upper reflector and an outermost surface of the
active region.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App’x).
2
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1: Claims 1—6, 13, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Naone et al. (US 6,898,215 B2;
issued May 24, 2005) (“Naone”) in view of Bour et al. (US 2007/0057270
Al; published March 15, 2007) (“Bour”), Hori (US 2007/0201526 Al;
published August 30, 2007) (“Hori”), and Lebby et al. (US 5,358,880; issued
October 25, 1994) (“Lebby”) (Ans. 3-8);
Rejection 2: Claims 7 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Naone in view of Bour, Hori, and Lebby, and
further in view of Deppe et al. (US 5,018,157; issued May 21, 1991)
(“Deppe”) (Ans. 9—10);4
Rejection 3: Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Naone in view of Bour, Hori, and Lebby, and
further in view of Chung (US 2012/0008658 Al; published January 12,
2012) (“Chung”) (Ans. 10-11);
Rejection 4: Claims 9 and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Naone in view of Bour, Hori, Lebby, and
Chung, and further in view of Yang et al., Spectral Trimming ofFano
Reflectors on Silicon and Glass Substrates, IEEE Lasers &
Electrooptics Society, 818-19 (2008) (“Yang”) (Ans. 11-12);
4 The Examiner’s statement of rejection of claims 7 and 12 at page 9 of the
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 11, 2016, omits Naone, but the body of
the rejection discusses Naone, and Naone was included in the Examiner’s
statement of rejection of claims 7 and 12 in the Final Office Action mailed
April 3, 2015 (Final Act. 7). Thus, we take this omission as an inadvertent
error, and we consider Naone to be part of the evidentiary basis in support of
the rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
Rejection 5: Claims 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orenstein et al. (US 5,031,187,
issued July 9, 1991) (“Orenstein”) in view of Naone, Bour, Hori, and Lebby
(Ans. 12—14); and
Rejection 6: Claims 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzgerald (US 2007/0105335 Al;
published May 10, 2007) in view of Naone, Bour, Hori, and Lebby
(Ans. 14—16).
DISCUSSION
We will focus on independent claim 1, which includes the argued
limitations.
The Examiner finds that Naone (Fig. 17) discloses a vertical cavity
light emitting source comprising: (a) a lower reflector (920); (b) an active
region (18, 22, 950) disposed over the lower reflector (920), wherein the
active region (18, 22, 950) is separated from the lower reflector (920) by at
least one intra-cavity electrically conductive contact (930) disposed between
an outermost (lower) surface of the active region (18, 22, 950) and the lower
reflector (920); and (c) an upper reflector (970) disposed over the active
region (18, 22, 950), wherein the upper reflector (970) is separated from the
active region (18, 22, 950) by at least one intra-cavity electrically conductive
contact (944) disposed between the upper reflector (970) and the outermost
(upper) surface of the active region (18, 22, 950). Ans. 3 (citing Naone
19:5—20:44; Fig. 7). The Examiner relies on Bour, Hori, and Lebby to
resolve the differences between the claimed and Naone’s vertical light
emitting source.
4
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
The Examiner finds that Naone does not specify that the intra-cavity
conductive contacts 930 and 944 are metal contacts, but teaches that “[o]ne
of skill in the art will appreciate that the orientation and type of materials
forming the VCSEL may be varied depending on the design.” Ans. 4 (citing
Naone 19:21—24). To resolve this difference, the Examiner relies on Bour.
The Examiner finds that Bour teaches a vertical cavity light emitting
source (Fig. 3) where the intra-cavity electrically conductive contacts 321
and 330 are metal contacts. Final Act. 4 (citing Bour || 2, 12; Fig. 3). The
Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to substitute Naone’s intra-cavity electrically conductive contacts 930
and 944 with Bour’s metal contacts “to reduce heating and voltage drops.”
Ans. 4 (citing Bour 11).
The Examiner finds that Naone as modified by Bour does not disclose
or suggest that the lower and upper reflectors (920, 970) comprise a
patterned membrane comprising an array of holes patterned into a layer of
semiconductor. Ans. 4. To resolve this difference, the Examiner relies on
Hori.
The Examiner finds that Hori teaches a reflector (Fig. 4, 970)
comprising a patterned membrane comprising an array of holes 402
patterned into a layer of semiconductor. Ans. 4 (citing Hori || 61—81, 107—
108, 113, 124—137, 143—170, 296—302). The Examiner determines that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to substitute Naone’s lower
and upper reflectors (920, 970) with Hori’s reflectors (photonic crystals)
comprising a patterned membrane comprising an array of holes patterned
into a layer of semiconductor because Hori specifically recommends
“replacing the DBRs (such as Naone’s 920 and 970) of the conventional
5
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
vertical cavity surface emitting laser with a photonic crystal reflector.”
Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted) (citing Hori | 64).
The Examiner finds that Naone, as modified by Bour and Hori does
not disclose or suggest that the active region (18, 22, 950) comprises a light
emitting region, a first cladding layer, a second cladding layer, a first contact
layer comprising a doped semiconductor and a second contact layer
comprising a doped semiconductor, wherein the light-emitting region is
between the first and second cladding layers and the first and second
cladding layers are between the first and second contact layers. Ans. 6. To
resolve this difference, the Examiner relies on Lebby.
The Examiner finds that Lebby teaches a vertical light emitting source
(Fig. 1), where the active region comprises light emitting region 16, first
cladding layer 17, second cladding layer 15, first contact layer 18
comprising a doped semiconductor and second contact layer 14 comprising a
doped semiconductor, where light-emitting region 16 is between first
cladding layer 17 and second cladding layer 15, and first cladding layer 17
and second cladding layer 15 are between first contact layer 18 and second
contact layer 14. Ans. 6—7 (citing Lebby 2:41—67, 3:16-4:23; Fig. 1). The
Examiner determines that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to substitute Naone’s active region (18, 22, 950) with Lebby’s active
region (14, 15, 16, 17, 18) “to improve LED efficiency.” Ans. 7 (citing
Lebby 1:61-62).
Appellants argue that “there would [have been] no apparent reason for
one of ordinary skill in the art to replace . . . layers 18, 22 and 950 of the
Naone/Bour/Hori Device with all of layers 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 of Lebby’s
device. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). In addition, Appellants argue that
6
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
the Examiner proposed modification would “[increase] the overall thickness
of the contact layer and [add] an interface between the pairs of contact
layers, [and thus,] one of ordinary skill in the art might well expect the
charge injection efficiency of the contact layers to decrease, thereby
degrading the performance of the device.” Reply Br. 5.
Appellants’ arguments are persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Carrier confinement layers
and one or more undoped InGaAsN quantum wells separated by GaAs
barrier layers that together make up Naone’s layer 18, form the optical
cavity of the device. Naone 19:46-49. The optical cavity (layer 18) in
Naone’s Figure 17 is sandwiched between an n-type contact layer (i.e., n-
type contact stack 930) and a p-type contact layer (i.e., p-type contact
stack 950). In Lebby, layers 15, 16, and 17 form the optical cavity of its
device. Lebby 3:47—49. As in Naone, the optical cavity in Lebby’s device
is sandwiched between an n-type contact layer and a p-type contact layer
(i.e., layers 14 and 18). Lebby 3:33—35, 53—57 (teaching electrically
conductive layers 14 and 18 in Lebby are heavily doped to “provide a good
electrical connection between external electrical contacts and the light
generating portion of LED 10.”) The Examiner’s rejection proposes
substituting layers 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 for Naone’s layer 18 as well as
oxide aperture 22, and p-type contact stack 950, while retaining Naone’s n-
type contact stack 930. Ans. 7 (citing Lebby 1:61—62); see also Ans. 22—23.
The Examiner, however, has not adequately explained why one of ordinary
skill in the art in making this substitution would have been led to include
Lebby’s doped layer 18 in Naone’s device while retaining Naone’s layer 930
instead of simply replacing one doped layer for the other (i.e., replacing
7
Appeal 2016-004313
Application 13/474,408
Naone’s layer 930 with Lebby’s doped layer 18). Nor has the Examiner
pointed to any teaching or suggestion in Lebby that including Lebby’s doped
layer 18 in Naone’s device while also retaining Naone’s n-type contact
layer 930 would have improved efficiency of Naone’s light emitting device.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Because the Examiner’s rejections of the dependent claims all rely on
the basic combination of Naone, Bour, Hori, and Lebby, we also cannot
sustain the rejections of claims 2—9, 11—13, and 15—20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9, 11—
13, and 15—20 are reversed.
REVERSED
8