Ex Parte Weiss et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

12745683 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
12/745,683 11/08/2010 Guido Weiss 5367-560PUS - 299829.000 3318
27799 7590
Cozen O'Connor
277 Park Avenue, 20th floor
NEW YORK, NY 10172
EXAMINER
CHEN, DAVID Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2017 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):
patentsecretary @ cozen. com
patentdocket@cozen.com
patentsorter@cozen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUIDO WEISS, BERTHOLD HAHN,
ULRICH ZEHNDER, and ANDREAS WEIMAR
Appeal 2016-004618
Application 12/745,6831
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
1 Appellants identify OSRAM Opto Semiconductors GmbH as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In our Decision we refer to the Specification filed June 1, 2010 (“Spec.”);
the Final Action electronically mailed on November 21, 2014 (“Final Act.”)’
the Advisory Action electronically mailed on February 9, 2015 (“Advis.
Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed July 1, 2015 (“Br.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer electronically mailed on February 17, 2016 (“Ans.”). Appellants
did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal 2016-004618
Application 12/745,683
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—3, 6, 7, 9—11, and 15—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to optoelectronic semiconductor bodies.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An optoelectronic semiconductor body with an epitaxial
semiconductor layer sequence, the optoelectronic
semiconductor body being based on nitride compound
semiconductors and containing an epitaxial semiconductor
buffer layer, an active zone and an epitaxial contact layer, the
optoelectronic semiconductor body having two major sides,
wherein:
the epitaxial semiconductor buffer layer is undoped or
partially n-conductively doped with an n-dopant concentration
of less than 3 x 1018 cm'3,
the active zone is suitable for emitting or receiving
electromagnetic radiation,
the contact layer is arranged between the buffer layer and
the active zone and is n-conductively doped,
the n-dopant concentration in the contact layer is greater
than in the buffer layer, and
the semiconductor layer sequence contains a recess,
which extends through the buffer layer and in which an
electrical contact material is arranged and adjoins the contact
layer,
wherein the buffer layer forms an outermost layer of the
optoelectronic semiconductor body on one of the major sides
thereof and the buffer layer has a major outer surface which
forms an outer surface of the optoelectronic semiconductor
body,
2
Appeal 2016-004618
Application 12/745,683
wherein an average roughness of the outer surface of
the buffer layer is at least 5 times an average roughness of the
bottom surface of the recess, and
wherein an average roughness of the outer surface of
the buffer layer is at least 5 times an average roughness of a
surface of the electrical contact material facing away from the
semiconductor layer sequence.
Br. 14 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kim et al.
(“Kim”)
Batres et al.
(“Batres”)
Yoon et al.
(“Yoon”)
Okagawa et al.
(“Okagawa”)
US 2005/0104081 Al
US 2006/0001046 Al
US 2008/0042149 Al
JP20066135311 (A)
May 19, 2005
Jan. 5, 2006
Feb. 21,2008
May 25, 2006
REJECTIONS
The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: (1)
claims 1, 6, 9—11, and 16—18 over Yoon in view of Batres; (2) claims 2, 3, 7,
19, and 20 over Yoon in view of Batres and further in view of Okagawa; and
(3) claim 15 over Yoon in view of Batres and further in view of Kim. Final
Act. 4, 8, and 11.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph, is moot as the claim was cancelled by Appellants in an
Amendment After Final Action filed January 20, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-004618
Application 12/745,683
OPINION
Appellants argue the rejected claims as a group. Br. 12. We select
claim 1, the sole independent claim, as representative of the group. The
remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Yoon teaches all elements of claim 1, save
for a specific disclosure of
wherein an average roughness of the outer surface of the
buffer layer is at least 5 times an average roughness of the
bottom surface of the recess, and
wherein an average roughness of the outer surface of the
buffer layer is at least 5 times an average roughness of a surface
of the electrical contact material facing away from the
semiconductor layer sequence.
Final Act. 4—5. The Examiner finds that Yoon clearly shows and discloses a
roughened outer surface of the buffer layer (110) to enhance light extraction
efficiency and the bottom surface of the recess is flat so that a current
crowding effect can be prevented. Id. at 5 (see Yoon H 57—58). The
Examiner also finds that Yoon shows a rectangular electrical contact
material (160) having flat surfaces, and Batres discloses that the surface
beneath the first contact (116) is substantially smooth to provide a direct
contact between contact (116) and substrate (112) to allow efficient transfer
of current from the contact into the substrate. Id. at 6 (citing Batres Fig. 19,
188).
Figure 2 of Yoon is reproduced below:3
3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, labels to elements are presented in
bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
4
Appeal 2016-004618
Application 12/745,683
160
Figure 2 of Yoon is a sectional view of a vertical nitride-based
semiconductor LED according to an embodiment of Yoon’s invention.
Yoon 128. Figure 2 shows a buffer layer (110), an n-type nitride
semiconductor layer (120), an active layer (130), a p-type nitride
semiconductor layer (140), and a p-electrode (150). Id.y^ 38-41. Ann-
type electrode (160) is formed on the n-type nitride semiconductor layer
(120). There is no buffer layer (110) where the n-electrode (160) is. Id.
Figure 2 of the pending ’683 Application is reproduced below:
21 ™
ryt
V
-'X
25 ~x
7
41
< 4 |! Ju
A
1
/ 211
------ -
42
4 i 221
ilJ
"Figure 2 of ’683
Application
L~5
V2
5
Appeal 2016-004618
Application 12/745,683
Figure 2 of the’683 Application is a schematic sectional view of the
optoelectronic semiconductor body, which is an exemplary embodiment of
the invention. Spec. 6,11. 29—30. Figure 2 shows electrical contact material
(4) in recess (3), which extends from an outer major surface of the
semiconductor layer sequence (2) through the buffer layer (21) and at least
as far as the contact layer (22). Id. at 9,11. 11—16.
The Examiner notes the great resemblance between Yoon and the
’683 Application in their depictions of flat lines and jagged/uneven lines.
Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to show prima facie
obviousness of claim 1 over Yoon in view of Batres because the cited
references do not disclose or suggest the specific claimed roughness ratio
between two particular pairs of surfaces. Br. 4.
However, the Examiner finds that Yoon and Batres clearly recognize
how the recited surfaces are optimized individually, i.e., that irregularities on
the surface of the buffer layer enhance light extraction efficiency, and a flat
or smooth surface avoids a current crowding effect (thereby increasing the
lifespan of an LED). Ans. 14; see also Yoon | 57. The Examiner thus
determines that, when the recited surfaces are clearly known to be optimized
as result-effective variables, the ratios or relationships between the surfaces
are also result-effective variables. Ans. 14.
During prosecution, the PTC) bears the initial burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). If
the PTO fails to meet this burden, the applicant is entitled to a patent. In re
Glaiig, 283 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002). If the Examiner produces
6
Appeal 2016-004618
Application 12/745,683
sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case, however, the burden shifts
to the applicant to produce evidence or argument in rebuttal. In re Kumar,
418 F.3d at 1366 (citing In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1475 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
Here, the Examiner has established prima facie obviousness. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the roughness or
smoothness of the recited surfaces affects light extraction efficiency and
current crowding, respectively, and would have sought to optimize the
textures of the surfaces, individually and in comparison to each other.
Appellants have not demonstrated reversible error by the Examiner.
The Examiner does not find the ratios are inherently present, therefore
Appellants’ argument regarding inherency is disregarded. See Br. 7.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The rejections of
claim 2, 3, 6, 7, 9—11, and 15—20 are sustained for the same reasons as for
claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6, 7, 9—
11, and 15—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
7