Appeal 2006-2769
Application 09/846,980
It can be inferred from this passage that the type of annealing (removing
hydrogen from a p-type layer) employed, e.g., at a temperature of 600ºC or
below (the temperature reached during “further cooldown”) is dependent on
desired time periods for activation of the p-type layer. This passage would
have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation
of successfully annealing Bour’s p-type layer using any and all of the above
temperatures in the presence of nitrogen at given activation time periods.
5. The claimed process involving heating a p-type layer to 600o C. from
a cool-down temperature just below 600o C. (e.g., 599.999999o C.) is
essentially identical to Bour’s activation step involving cooling down the p-
type layer to and maintaining it at about 600o C. The claimed and prior art
temperature ranges are so close that one skilled in the art would have
expected them to produce products having the same or similar properties.
6. The Appellants acknowledge at page 3 of the Specification that one of
ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the annealing temperatures at or
below 600oC exemplified in Bour are desirable. Specifically, the
Specification states at page 3 that “as is recognized by those skilled in the
art, temperatures greater than 600oC increasingly reduce the intensity of the
LED light emission due to the degradation of the crystallinity of the GaN at
such temperatures.”3
VII. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings at pages 4
and 5 of the Answer that:
3 Furukawa and the other prior art references cited are unnecessary for this
analysis.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013