Ex Parte Lai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 22, 201310642244 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SHENG-CHIH LAI, HSIANG-LAN LUNG and YI-CHOU CHEN ____________________ Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, JOHN G. NEW, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-11 and 20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 3 1 The real party of interest is Macronix International Co., Ltd. 2 Claims 12-19 have been withdrawn from consideration, and are not on appeal. Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a mask read-only-memory (ROM) device containing diodes in which the logic “0” and “1” are defined by whether there is a dielectric layer on the diode. See Spec. 1, ll. 6-9, and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claims 1 and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A mask read only memory containing diodes, comprising: a semiconductor substrate; an insulating layer on the semiconductor substrate; a plurality of first conductive lines along a first direction on the insulating layer; a plurality of vertical diodes on the first conductive lines; a plurality of dielectric layers on the diodes; and a plurality of second conductive lines along a second direction on the dielectric layers and the diodes, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction. Evidence Considered Johnson US 6,525,953 B1 Feb. 25, 2003 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed October 16, 2006 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 30, 2010 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed January 18, 2007 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed August 18, 2003 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 3 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Johnson. Ans. 3-9. (2) Claims 1-11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by JP 06-334139. 4 Ans. 9. Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Johnson. In particular, the issue turns on whether Johnson discloses “a plurality of dielectric layers on the diodes” as recited in independent claim 1, and “a plurality of dielectric layers directly on the first vertical diodes” as recited in independent claim 20. App. Br. 5- 7; Reply Br. 2-3. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. The Examiner has provided a response, supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised by Appellants. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. 4 The 102(b) rejection of claims 1-11 and 20 based on Japanese Patent Abstract Publication 06-334139 has been withdrawn by the Examiner, as per Examiner Answer, p. 9. Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 4 With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants acknowledge Johnson discloses “a semiconductor substrate 100, an insulating layer 102, conductive lines 114 and vertical diodes 12” and such a diode 12 includes “first and second diode components 13 and 14 separated by an anti-fuse layer 16” as shown, for example, in FIG. 1 and FIG. 7. App. Br. 6 (citing Johnson, col. 3, ll. 10-15; and FIG. 1). Nevertheless, Appellants contend Johnson does not disclose the disputed limitation: “a plurality of dielectric layers on the diodes” as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue that Johnson only shows the dielectric layer as an anti-fuse layer located between the P and N diode components of a diode. Id. In other words, the dielectric layer 120 is part of a diode, and is disposed between the P and N diode components of a diode; however, such a dielectric layer 120 of Johnson is not on the diode, as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1. Id. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive to demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). At the outset, we note that claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, (Fed. Cir. 2004). Such claim terms are “given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). However, it is the use of the words in the context of the written description and customarily by those skilled in the relevant art that accurately reflects both the “ordinary” and the “customary” meaning of the Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 5 terms in the claims. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003). [The claims] are part of a fully integrated written instrument, consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason, claims must be read in view of the specification . . . . [T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the context of Appellants’ Specification, “a plurality of the dielectric layers 150” is described in connection with FIG. 1L as being “on part of the diodes D.” See Appellants’ Spec. 12, ll. 25-26. According to Appellants’ Specification, the diodes D are represented by PN diodes. Id. at 11, ll. 18-20. Each PN diode consists of (1) P and N diode components 122- 124 and an anti-fuse (dielectric) layer 150 disposed on part of the P and N diode components 122-124, as shown in FIG. 1L (Id.), or (2) a pair of PN diode components 222-223, 225-226 or 228-229 and a corresponding dielectric layer 241, 242, or 243 disposed on part of the PN diode components 222-223, 225-226 or 228-229, as shown in FIG. 3P. Id. at 21, ll. 9-12 and 26-30. In the instant appeal, the Examiner has interpreted the term “a plurality of dielectric layers on the diodes” as encompassing dielectric layers (AF) disposed on part of the diodes, on individual (PN) diode components of the diodes, or alternatively, on the diodes of a single lightly-doped layer (in conjunction with a heavily doped layer), as described in connection with FIGS. 4-9 of Johnson. Ans. 8. For example, the dielectric layer (AF) can be Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 6 disposed on an N component of a diode, as shown in FIG. 4 and FIG. 6, or alternatively, a P component of a diode, as shown in FIG. 5 of Johnson. For a diode in which a single lightly-doped layer is needed in conjunction with a heavily doped layer, as shown in FIG. 6 of Johnson, the dielectric layer (AF) is disposed “on” a diode consisting of adjoining lightly doped N- and heavily doped N+ layers. See Johnson, col. 9, ll. 59-62; col. 10, ll. 43-49; FIG. 6. We find the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed limitation reasonable and consistent with Appellants’ Specification. Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants reiterate the same patentability arguments, that is, Johnson only shows the dielectric layer as an anti-fuse layer located between the P and N conductive layers, and does not disclose “dielectric layers directly on the first vertical diodes.” App. Br. 7. For the same reasons discussed, the dielectric layers directly on the first vertical diodes can also be interpreted to encompass directly on part of the first vertical diodes, or directly on individual components of the first vertical diodes, as described by Johnson. As such, we will also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 20. With respect to dependent claims 4, 6, and 9, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established that the materials recited therein are disclosed by Johnson. App. Br. 8. For example, claims 4, 6, and 9 recite that an insulating layer, a separating layer, dielectric layers and a separating layer is made of “silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide (Al2O3), silicon nitride Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 7 (Si3N4), tantalum pentoxide (Ta2O5), barium strontium titanate (BST), hafnium oxide (HfO2), or titanium dioxide (TiO2).” See Claims 4, 6, and 9. The Examiner responds that, because silicon dioxide is listed as one of the materials, Johnson discloses the subject matter of Appellants’ claims 4, 6, and 9. Ans. 9; also see Johnson, col. 8, ll. 63-64; and col. 9, ll. 3-4, ll. 23- 25. We agree with the Examiner and also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 4, 6, and 9. With respect to dependent claims 8 and 11, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established that the mask ROM device comprise 2 to 10 memory cell layers are disclosed by Johnson. App. Br. 8. While the Examiner has not referred to Johnson for disclosing 2 to 10 memory cell layers, we consider the Examiner’s omission harmless since FIGS. 4-9 of Johnson show at least 2 memory cell layers and, therefore, anticipate Appellants’ claims 8 and 11. With respect to remaining claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10, Appellants present no separate patentability arguments. For the same reasons discussed, we will also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-11 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Johnson. Appeal 2011-007555 Application 10/642,244 8 DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11 and 20. 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 alw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation