T 0419/14 26-02-2019

Reasons for the Decision

1. Procedural matters

1.1 Admission of document D9

1.1.1 The appellant cited document D9 for the first time in its letter setting out the grounds of appeal.

The respondent requested that this document be dis­regarded for being late-filed and not relevant.

1.1.2 The board notes that the claims of the main request, according to which the semiconductor layers of the claimed transistors are made of gallium nitride com­pounds, were only filed one month prior to the oral proceedings before the opposition divi­sion.

Moreover, document D9 relates indeed to adaptations ne­cessary when considering gallium nitride transistors as opposed to gallium arsenide transistors. In the deci­sion under appeal the fact that several such adapta­tions were necessary to arrive at the claimed subject-matter when starting from document D2 was re­garded­ an indication that the invention involved an inventive step.

Hence, the board accepts that the appellant could not have been expected to file document D9 during the oppo­si­tion proceedings and that it filed this document at the earliest possible occasion, namely with the grounds of appeal. Consequently, the board did not exercise its power under Article 12(4) RPBA to hold inad­missi­ble document D9, which is thus part of the appeal pro­cee­dings in accordance with Article 12(1) and (2) RPBA.

1.2 Admission of late-filed lines of attack

1.2.1 The appellant stated at the oral pro­ceedings before the board that - apart from arguing lack of inventive step based on document D2 as closest state of the art (see point 2 below) - it also intended to pre­sent other lines of attack based on documents D5, D7 and D8.

1.2.2 The respondent expressed its surprise concerning the new turn of events, but stated that it was prepared to dis­cuss inventive step starting from documents other than document D2.

1.2.3 According to Article 12(2) RPBA, the statement of the grounds of appeal must contain a party's complete case and should specify all the facts, arguments and evi­dence relied on.

Any amendment to a party's case after it has filed its grounds of appeal may, according to Article 13(1) RPBA, be admitted and considered at the board's discretion. The discretion must be exercised in view of inter alia the complexity of the new subject-matter submitted, the current state of the proceedings and the need for pro­cedural economy.

In particular, according to Article 13(3) RPBA, amend­ments sought to be made after oral proceedings have been arranged shall not be admitted if they raise is­sues which the board or the other party cannot rea­son­ably be expected to deal with without adjournment of the oral proceedings.

1.2.4 In the present case the objections of lack of inventive step on the basis of any one of documents D5, D7, and D8 as closest state of the art were submitted for the first time at the oral pro­ceedings before the board. Hence these objections were submitted after the state­ment of the grounds of appeal and are an amendment to the appellant's case within the meaning of Article 13(1) and (3) RPBA. Con­sequently, the admission of these objections is at the board's dis­cretion (see T 1761/10, point 5 of the Reasons).

1.2.5 The appellant did not provide any justification for raising the new objections at such a late stage of the proceedings. Indeed, the board does not see any reason why the appellant should not have been in a position to submit these objections at the earliest possible stage of the appeal proceedings, i. e. with the grounds of appeal. In this case a thorough exchange of views con­cerning the ob­jec­tions could have taken place already during the written stage of the appeal pro­ceedings.

1.2.6 By contrast, if the new objections were admitted into the appeal proceedings at the oral proceedings, the focus of the discussion could be expected to shift to entire­ly new issues which had played no role in the appeal proceedings up to that point.

For example, the appellant had merely discussed docu­ments D5 and D8 rather briefly in order to show that gallium nitride devices had certain advantages over gallium arsenide devices. However, there had not been any discussion whether these docu­ments disclosed the other claimed features, for example­ concerning the band gaps, doping and conductivity types of semicon­ductor layers of the disclosed devices. Document D7 being a lengthy review article had not been discussed at all in the appeal procedure.

Moreover, complex discussions could be expected to en­sue, in particular in relation to the differing­ fea­tures of the claimed subject-matter over the new star­ting points in the assessment of inventive step, the technical effects of these features and the ques­tion whether it would be obvious for the skilled person to arrive at them.

1.2.7 The respondent might thus well find - contrary to its subjective initial appraisal of the new situation - that it cannot properly argue its case within the limited time avail­able at the oral proceedings. Hence, according to the board's assessment neither the respon­dent nor the board can reasonably be expected to deal with the new objections during the scheduled oral pro­ceedings.

1.2.8 In view of the above considerations, exercising its discretion under Article 13(1) and (3) RPBA, the board did not admit into the appeal pro­ceedings the new ob­jections of lack of inventive step on the basis of any one of documents D5, D7, and D8 as closest state of the art.

2. Main request - inventive step starting from document D2 as closest state of the art

2.1 Document D2 as closest state of the art

In the decision under appeal the opposition division held that the closest state of the art must be a galli­um nitride based device, namely document D8, but never­theless assessed inventive step also starting from do­cu­ment D2 as closest state of the art (see point 19 of the Reasons).

The board is of the opinion that document D2 discloses - as detailed below - subject-matter that is conceived for the same purpose as the claimed inven­tion, namely for providing a hetero-junction type field effect tran­sistor, and has many relevant technical features in common with it. Inventive step may therefore well be assessed starting from document D2 as the closest state of the art.

2.2 Distinguishing features

2.2.1 In the decision under appeal the opposition division held that the subject-matter of claim 1 differed from the device of document D2 in that gallium nitride was used to form the semiconductor layers (see points 19.2 and 19.3 of the Reasons).

2.2.2 Document D2 discloses (see column 4, lines 25-53) a field effect transis­tor comprising a high purity intrinsic-type GaAs buffer layer 12, a high purity In0.15Ga0.85As channel layer 13, a Si-doped n-type Al0.2Ga0.8As electron supply layer 14, a C-doped p-type Al0.2Ga0.8As contact layer 15, and a Si-doped n-type GaAs cap layer 16, grown on a semi-insulating GaAs substrate 11 in this order by a MOCVD method. Next, after a photoresist layer 17 is pat­terned, the Si-doped n-type GaAs cap layer 16 is crystal-etched so as to expose a portion of the C-doped p-type Al0.2Ga0.8As layer 15. Then a Schottky gate electrode 18 of a Ti/Pt/Au structure is formed on the exposed portion of the C-doped p-type Al0.2Ga0.8As layer 15 in a vacuum vapor deposition apparatus. Next, ohmic electrodes 19 com­posed of AuGe/Ni/Au are formed as a source and a drain on the Si-doped n-type GaAs cap layer 16 on both sides of Schottky gate electrode 18 in the vacuum vapor depo­si­tion apparatus. Finally, heat treatment is performed at the temperature of 450°C for alloying such that ohmic alloy layers 20 are formed, thus completing the field effect transistor.

2.2.3 It is uncontested between the parties that document D2 discloses - using the wording of claim 1 of the main request - a transistor (field effect transistor) com­prising:

a first layer (In0.15Ga0.85As channel layer 13);

a second layer (Si-doped n-type Al0.2Ga0.8As electron supply layer 14) stacked on a top surface of the first layer (channel layer 13);

a surface layer (C-doped p-type Al0.2Ga0.8As contact layer 15) stacked on a top surface of the second layer (electron supply layer 14); and

a gate electrode (Schottky gate electrode 18) formed at a top surface side of the surface layer (contact layer 15);

wherein the first layer (channel layer 13) comprises a first III-V semiconductor (In0.15Ga0.85As),

the second layer (electron supply layer 14) comprises a second III-V semiconductor (Al0.2Ga0.8As) having a second conductivity type of p or n type (namely n-type),

the surface layer (contact layer 15) comprises a III-V nitride semiconductor (Al0.2Ga0.8As) having a first conductivity type (namely p-type) opposite to the second conductivity type (n-type).

2.2.4 The respondent argued that there was no dis­closure in document D2 concerning the band-gap ratios of the semi­conductor layers of the disclosed devices.

In the decision under appeal the opposition division held that the band gap of the Al0.2Ga0.8As electron supply layer 14 was known to be larger than that of the In0.15Ga0.85As channel layer 13 (see point 19.2 of the Reasons).

The board agrees with the opposition division and fur­ther notes that document D2 relates to hetero-junc­tion type field effect transistors incorporating a junc­tion be­tween two materials with different band gaps, namely in particular between the Al0.2Ga0.8As layer (having the wider band gap) and the In0.15Ga0.85As layer (see D2, column 1, lines 34-41).

Hence, document D2 also discloses - using the claimed wording - that a band gap of the second III-V semi­conductor (Al0.2Ga0.8As electron supply layer 14) is wider than a band gap of the first III-V semiconductor (In0.15Ga0.85As channel layer 13).

2.2.5 Consequently, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request differs from the device of document D2 in that

- the first layer is a Gallium Nitride compound comprising a first III-V nitride semiconductor,

- the second layer is a Gallium Nitride compound comprising a second III-V nitride semiconductor, and

- the surface layer is a Gallium Nitride compound comprising a III-V nitride semiconductor.

2.3 Objective technical problem

The board agrees with the appellant in that the effect of using gallium nitride as a base material is to allow operation at high temperatures (due to its large band gap) and high voltages (due to its high breakdown vol­tage). ­The objective technical problem is thus to achieve these effects.

2.4 Obviousness

2.4.1 In the decision under appeal the opposition division held that it would not be obvious for the skilled per­son to arrive at the claimed subject-matter, in partic­u­lar in view of the fact that - when starting from do­cu­­ment D2 as closest state of the art - various adapta­tions would be necessary to transform the normally-on device of docu­ment D2 into the claimed normally-off device (points 19.4 to 19.8 of the Reasons).

2.4.2 The opposition division thus assumed that the device of claim 1 of the main request was normally-off. How­ever, at the oral proceedings before the board both parties agreed that the fea­tures of that claim did not nec­es­sarily imply that the claimed device was nor­mally-off. The board agrees with this point of view, since many characteristics of the semiconductor layers having an influence on this mat­ter, such as the precise com­posi­tions, thick­nesses and doping concen­trations of the layers, are not speci­fied in claim 1 of the main re­quest.

2.4.3 Moreover, the board agrees with the appellant in that gallium nitride is known from documents D4, D5, D6, D8 and D9 to be used for the produc­tion of hetero-junction type field effect transducers and is also known to be a wide band gap semiconductor material with a high criti­cal breakdown field. These documents would therefore be considered by the skilled person when attempting to solve the posed technical problem.

2.4.4 However, none of the documents D4, D5, D6, D8 and D9 dis­closes a gallium nitride based hetero-junction type field effect transistor having the claimed pn-junction (see second and third to last features of claim 1 of the main request). Such a pn-junction is only known from document D2 in combination with­ a gallium arsenide based hetero-junction type field effect transistor (see point 2.2 above).

Hence, the question arises whether the skilled person would - when starting from D2 as closest state of the art - retain the pn-junction disclosed in D2 when con­templating the use of gallium nitride for the produc­tion of a hetero-junction type field effect transducer.

The appellant was of the opinion that the skilled per­son would expect gallium nitride to show a similar be­haviour to gallium arsenide and would thus not be dis­suaded to retain the pn-junction when considering the use of gallium nitride in the device of document D2.

The board notes that the object stated in do­cu­ment D2 was to overcome large changes - in the known gallium arsenide based hetero-junction type field effect tran­sistors - of the thresh­­old voltage due to thickness variations of the electron supply layer. These were the result of the steep incli­nation of the electrostatic potential in the n-type Al0.2Ga0.8As electron supply layer 4 under the Ti/Pt/Au Schottky gate electrode 7 in these known tran­sistors. In order to stabilize the threshold voltage document D2 proposes to use a p-type Al0.2Ga0.8As layer 15 between the Ti/Pt/Au Schottky gate electrode 18 and the n-type Al0.2Ga0.8As electron supply layer 14, there­by rendering the electrostatic potential under the Schottky gate electrode 18 more gentle due to the pn-junction (see D2, column 1, lines 42-57; column 4, line 54 - column 5, line 5; Figures 2 and 6).

The gallium nitride hetero-junction type field effect transistors disclosed in documents D4, D5, D6, D8 and D9 differ not only in the base material from the gal­lium arsenide based tran­sis­tors described in docu­ment D2, but also in the metal compositions of the respec­tive gate electrodes and the doping levels of the re­spec­tive electron supply layers and channel layers. It is there­fore not considered evident for the skilled per­son that in these gallium nitride based transistors the electrostatic potential under the respective gate electrodes would behave similarly to the electrostatic potential of the tran­sis­tor described in document D2.

Furthermore, due to the wider band gap of gallium ni­tride as compared to gallium arsenide the problem de­scribed in document D2 (large changes of the thresh­­­old voltage due to thickness variations of the electron supply layer) might not arise in gallium nitride based hetero-junction type field effect transistors at all.

In view of these considerations, the board is of the opinion that the skilled person would not - when start­ing from D2 as closest state of the art and attempting to solve the posed technical problem - replace the gallium arsenide layers of the transistor of D2 by gallium nitride layers and at the same time retain the pn-junction of that transistor. Rather, the skilled person would replace the entire transistor of document D2 by one of the known gallium nitride based hetero-junc­tion type field effect transistors.

2.4.5 Therefore, the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request involves an inventive step over document D2 in combination with the documents D4, D5, D6, D8, and D9.

Claim 3 relates to a transistor corresponding to the transistor specified in claim 1 but comprising a plurality of pairs of layers of opposite conductivity type.

Independent method claims 5 and 7 correspond to respec­tive device claims 1 and 3. Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 are dependent on claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, respectively.

Accordingly, the subject-matter of claims 1 to 8 of the main request involves an inventive step over document D2 in combination with the documents D4, D6, D8, and D9 (Article 52(1) EPC and Article 56 EPC 1973).

3. Conclusion

Since the board is - as indicated above - of the opin­ion that the patent as upheld by the opposition divi­sion (main request) and the invention to which it re­lates meet the require­ments of the EPC, the appeal is to be dismissed (Article 101(3)(a) EPC and Article 111(1) EPC 1973). Consideration of the auxiliary re­quests is therefore not necessary.