Ex Parte Tandon et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

10185268 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ASHISH TANDON, YING-LAN CHANG, and DAVID BOUR

Appeal 2010-02317
Application 10/185,268
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-02317
Application 10/185,268

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 9 and 11 through 14. Claims 10 and 15 through 20 have
been canceled.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a semiconductor laser comprising an
indium-phosphide substrate off-axis from a (100) plane. See Specification
page 5. Claim 1 is representative of the claimed invention under appeal and
reproduced below:

1. A semiconductor laser comprising:
an indium-phosphide (InP) non-(100) substrate, wherein
said non-(100) substrate is off-axis from a (100) plane by
greater than zero degrees to approximately 15 degrees; and
an active region above said substrate.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Nagashima (US 2002/0118717 A1, Aug. 29,
2002). Answer 3-4.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 5 through 9, 11 and 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nagashima in view of Appellants’
admitted prior art. Answer 4-6.

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
June 24, 2009.
Appeal 2010-02317
Application 10/185,268

3

The Examiner has rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagashima in view of Appellants’ admitted prior art and
Stintz (US 6,600,169 B2, Jul. 29, 2003). Answer 6-7.
The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nagashima in view of Appellants’ admitted prior art and
Kaneno (US 5,644,587, Jul. 1, 1997). Answer 7-8.
ISSUE
Appellants contend that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of
claims 1-9 and 11-14 is that an indium-phosphide (Inp) non-(100) substrate
cannot be close to a (100) plane to thereby approximate the (100) plane and
is therefore outside the teachings of Nagashima.” Brief 9.
2

Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: did the
Examiner err in finding that Nagashima discloses an indium-phosphide
substrate which is off-axis from a (100) plane by greater than zero degrees to
approximately 15 degrees as recited in independent claims 1 and 11?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the independent claims argued.

2
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Supplemental Appeal Brief dated
March 3, 2007 and Appeal Brief dated January 3, 2007, and the claims
appendix submitted July 6, 2009.
Appeal 2010-02317
Application 10/185,268

4

We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. 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 in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1 through 9 and 11
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 9 and 11 through 14 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

ke