Ex Parte Singh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 17, 2016

13250766 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/250,766 09/30/2011 Kaushal K. Singh
44257 7590 05/19/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
015444.02/CTO/ATG/ESONG 3960
EXAMINER
ESKRIDGE, CORYW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2898
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/19/2016 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAUSHAL K. SINGH, ROBERT JAN VISSER, and
BHASKAR KUMAR
Appeal2015-000314
Application 13/250,766
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-8, and 22-27. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Real Party in Interest is stated to be Applied Materials, Inc. (Br. 3).
Appeal2015-000314
Application 13/250,766
Claims 1 and 22 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added)2 :
1. A thin film transistor structure comprising:
a gate insulator layer disposed on a substrate;
a polycrystalline GaAs based layer disposed over the gate insulator
layer, wherein the GaAs based layer is fabricated from a solution based
GaAs containing precursor having a ratio of Ga element to As element
substantially between about 1:0.8 and about 1:1.2; and
a source-drain metal electrode layer disposed adjacent to the
GaAs based layer.
22. A thin film transistor structure comprising:
a gate insulator layer disposed on a substrate;
a p-type doped polycrystalline GaAs based layer disposed over the
gate insulator layer, wherein the p-type doped polycrystalline GaAs based
layer is fabricated from a solution based GaAs containing precursor, and
wherein p-type dopant selected to be doped into the p-type doped
polycrystalline GaAs based layer is selected from a group consisting of
metallic zinc dopants, dimethyl zinc (DMZ), diethyl zinc (DEZ), metallic
magnesium dopants, cyclopentadienyl magnesium, carbon chlorine (CCl4);
and
a source-drain metal electrode layer disposed adjacent to the p-type
doped polycrystalline GaAs based layer.
The Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on appeal are:
A. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6-8, 26, and 27 as unpatentable over Kawasaki et
al. (US 2002/0145143 Al, published Oct. 10, 2002) ("Kawasaki")
in view of Park et al. (US 2010/0096634 Al, published Apr. 22,
2010) ("Park") and Takei et al. (US 2009/0001504 Al, published
Jan. 1, 2009) ("Takei");
2 Independent claim 24 is similar to claim 22 except the "GaAs based layer
is fabricated from a solution based GaAs containing precursor" is a n-type
doped layer. See Claims App'x.
2
Appeal2015-000314
Application 13/250,766
B. Claims 22 and 23 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of
Park, Okamoto et al. (US 5,920, 105, issued July 6, 1999)
("Okamoto") and Takei; and
C. Claims 24 and 25 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of
Park, Ui et al. (US 2004/0016965 Al, published Jan. 29, 2004)
("Ui") and Takei.
D. Claim 4 as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Kawasaki,
Park, Takei and Ui.
ANALYSIS
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer, including the Response to Argument
section, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to products
and that the key limitations in dispute involve the process by which the
product(s) \Vere made is not in dispute (generally Br.; ii .. ns.). Appellants'
main argument focuses on the lack of the applied prior art to explicitly state
that the polycrystalline GaAs layer was made "from a solution based GaAs
containing precursor" as recited in each of claims 1, 22, and 24. The use of
a specific starting material as claimed and argued by Appellants is a process
limitation.
It has been well established that, when a product recited in product-
by-process format reasonably appears to be the same as or obvious from a
product of the prior art, the burden is on applicant to show that the prior art
product is in fact different from the claimed product, even though the
products may be made by different processes. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,
697 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
3
Appeal2015-000314
Application 13/250,766
The applied prior art establishes that a product with a polycrystalline
GaAs layer is known (see, e.g., Takei i-f 95 which encompasses
polycrystalline GaAs as an active layer of a semiconductor; Park i-f 43 which
describes "poly-crystalline silicon (poly-Si), GeSi, GaAs" as well as others
for the active layer on a gate insulating layer). See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that the prior art's
disclosure of over 1200 possible combinations rendered all possible
formulations obvious).
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that conventional vacuum
techniques for forming the GaAs layer do not result in a specific element
ratio of the resultant film layer (Br. 12), and that the GaAs layer formed
from a solution based GaAs is polycrystalline GaAs "which provides a
functional and structural difference to conventional GaAs layer formed from
a vacuum-type deposition technique" (id.). With respect to claims 22 and
24, Appellants mainly argue the references individually, and allege that the
applied prior art does not teach a p-type doped or n-type doped
polycrystalline GaAs layer fabricated from a solution based GaAs precursor
(Br. 14, 15). These arguments are unavailing, since, as pointed out by the
Examiner, the ratio of claim 1 is directed to the precursor material (Ans. 2)
and the end result of a polycrystalline GaAs layer is rendered obvious by the
applied prior art as a whole. Furthermore, attorney arguments in a brief that
the structure of the polycrystalline layer of the claims is somehow different
than the polycrystalline GaAs layer of the applied prior art cannot take the
place of evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
In any event, Appellants' Specification describes that many different
techniques, including vacuum techniques, may be used to form the GaAs
4
Appeal2015-000314
Application 13/250,766
layer from the solution based GaAs precursor (Spec. if 51 ). Thus,
Appellants have failed to satisfy their burden to provide some rationale or
evidence why the polycrystalline GaAs layer of the resulting products of the
applied prior art do not correspond to that of the claimed products.
Accordingly, on this record, Appellants have failed to demonstrate
that a product made from a solution based GaAs precursor results in a
structural difference from the polycrystalline GaAs active semiconductor
layer of the applied prior art, whether it is "a polycrystalline GaAs based
layer" (claim 1) or "a p-type doped polycrystalline GaAs based layer" (claim
22), or "an-type doped polycrystalline GaAs based layer" (claim 24). In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697; cf In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 1977).
Appellants have not persuasively presented facts or reasons to
convince us that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness as to the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103
rejections of all of the claims on appeal.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l).
AFFIRMED
5