11100672 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 31, 2013

11100672 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

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. 11/100,672 04/07/2005 An-Ping Zhang OR-07659 7694 45722 7590 07/31/2013 Howard IP Law Group P.O. Box 226 Fort Washington, PA 19034 EXAMINER KRAIG, WILLIAM F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/31/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AN-PING ZHANG, JAMES KRETCHMER and EDMUND KAMINSKY JR. ____________ Appeal 2010-011431 Application 11/100,672 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011431 Application 11/100,672 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 7-9, 16, 17, 19, 22-31 and 37-40. Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a high mobility transistor including a GaN material system based heterostructure. Abstract. Illustrative Claim (Emphasis Added) 7. A high electron mobility transistor comprising: a GaN material system based heterostructure; a dense passivating stoichiometric LPCVD nitride layer over said heterostructure and defining a plurality of openings; a plurality of electrical contacts for said heterostructure and being formed through said openings; and a gate contact being formed through one of said openings and in contact with the GaN material system based heterostructure, wherein at least one portion of said gate contact laterally extends over at least one portion of the passivating nitride layer, such that the at least one portion of said passivating nitride layer is under the at least one laterally extending portion of the gate contact and the at least one laterally extending portion of the gate contact is on an uppermost surface of the passivating nitride layer. Rejections on Appeal Claims 7-9, 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hussain (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0029330 A1; published February 12, 2004), Gopalan (U.S. Patent Appeal 2010-011431 Application 11/100,672 3 Number 6,803,289 B1; issued October 12, 2004), Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0179379 A1; published August 18, 2005) and Adams (A.C. Adams, “Dielectric and Polysilicon Film Deposition”, VLSI Technology, Second Edition, pgs. 233-271). Answer 3-6. Claims 16, 17and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hussain, Gopalan, Kim, Adams and Morizuka (U.S. Patent Number 6,555,851 B2; issued April 29, 2003). Answer 7-9. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hussain, Gopalan, Morizuka, Kim, Adams, and Fan (“AIGaN/GaN double heterostructure channel modulation doped field effect transistors (MODFETs)”. Electronics Letters, Volume 33, No. 9, 24 April 1997, Pgs. 814-815. Answer 9-10. Claims 22-27 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hussain, Gopalan, Kim, Adams and Hirose (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2005/0189651 A1; September 1, 2005). Answer 10-15. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hussain, Gopalan, Hirose, Kim, Adams and Morizuka. Answer 15-16. Appeal 2010-011431 Application 11/100,672 4 Issue on Appeal Do Hussain, Gopalan, Kim, Adams, Hirose and Morizuka, either alone or in combination, disclose a “dense passivating stoichiometric LPCVD nitride layer” as recited in claim 7? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend that each independent claim (7, 16 and 22) recites, in part, “a dense passivating stoichiometric LPCVD nitride layer over said heterostructure and defining a plurality of openings.” Appeal Brief 12. The Examiner finds that although Hussain employs SiN (silicon nitride) instead of stoichiometric LPCVD nitride; Gopalan addresses Hussain’s deficiency and discloses the utilization of nitride film formed by the LPCVD process. Answer 5. Appellants present several different rationales about why the Examiner’s reliance upon the combination of Hussain and Gopalan fails to render the claimed invention obvious however we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. See Appeal Brief 10-20. The Examiner finds that an artisan would have been motivated to modify Hussain by incorporating the LPCVD formed nitride layer of Appeal 2010-011431 Application 11/100,672 5 Gopalan because of properties of conformal deposition, low thickness variation, low temperature deposition and etching characteristics associated with LPCVD formed nitride layers, subsequently, the Examiner has satisfied the test for obviousness by showing that a nitride layer formed by deposition in a semiconductor device can be modified by utilizing a nitride layer formed by LPCVD and have articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Answer 4-5. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Further, we note that independent claims 7, 16 and 22 are all device claims which recite a method of manufacturing, in this instance LPCVD. These limitations are associated with the type of nitride layer used. Since patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985), the recited LPCVD nitride layer reads on known nitride layers regardless of the manufacturing procedure used to form them. Subsequently, we do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive and with agree with the Examiner’s findings. We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 7, 16 and 22, as well as, dependent claims 8, 9, 17, 19, 23-31 and 37-40 not separately argued. DECISION The obviousness rejections of claims 7-9, 16, 17, 19, 22-31 and 37-40 are affirmed. Appeal 2010-011431 Application 11/100,672 6 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Vsh