Ex Parte Lin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 7, 201612021728 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/021,728 01129/2008 82346 7590 03/09/2016 CLARK HILL PLC 150 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hong Lin 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 03-2202/lD 4387 EXAMINER TANG,SUIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2814 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/09/2016 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): mkitz@clarkhill.com jfoley@clarkhill.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HONG LIN, WAI LO, SEY-SHING SUN, and RICHARD CARTER1 Appeal2014-006594 Application 12/021,728 Technology Center 2800 Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1 over Grupp2 in view of Satoh3 and of claim 3 over Grupp in view of Satoh and Xiang.4 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify LSI Corporation as the Real Party in Interest. Appeal Brief ("Br."), 4. 2 Grupp et al., US 2004/0142524 Al, published July 22, 2004. 3 Satoh et al., US 5,543,646, issued August 6, 1996. 4 Xiang et al., US 2005/0040477 Al, published February 24, 2005. Appeal2014-006594 Application 12/021,728 BACKGROUND Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a metal gate in a wafer. Spec. 5, 11. 13-15; Abstract (describing how the metal gate is formed). As described, see Figure 14, the gate comprises a liner 60 with a groove-filled with metal 7 6-defined by inner walls of the liner, wherein outer walls of the liner are parallel from the top to bottom of the liner and the inner walls of the liner have first parallel, tapering, and second parallel walls with the tapering walls joining first parallel walls with second parallel walls. Spec. 5, ll.13-15;8,ll.13-17;Fig.14. Claim 1-the sole independent claim-is illustrative: 1. A metal gate in a wafer comprising; a liner having parallel outer walls which are parallel from a top of the liner to a bottom of the liner, said bottom of the liner being in contact with a silicon substrate, said liner having inner walls which define a groove, wherein the inner walls of the liner comprise first parallel sidewalls, second parallel sidewalls, as well as a tapered profile portion which converges in a straight line from the first parallel sidewalls to the second parallel sidewalls, said second parallel sidewalls ending in contact with the silicon substrate; metal in the groove in contact with the first parallel sidewalls, in contact with the second parallel sidewalls, in contact with the tapered profile portion of the groove defined by the liner and the silicon substrate, and in contact with the silicon substrate thereby providing said metal gate on the silicon substrate. App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). DISCUSSION Appellants rely on arguments as to the patentability of claim 1 for both claim 1 and claim 3. App. Br. 10-13. With no separate arguments 2 Appeal2014-006594 Application 12/021,728 proffered, all claims will stand or fall together with independent claim 1, which we select as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Upon consideration of the evidence, Appellants' arguments, and the Examiner's findings and reasoning, 5 we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge provided in the applied prior art, would have been led to the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 3 within the meaning of35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants' arguments, thus, fail to identify reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection which we, accordingly, sustain for the reasons set forth in the Final Rejection and the Answer. We add the discussion below primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds Grupp discloses a gate (metal) bounded by liner (oxide) having parallel outer walls from the top of the liner to the bottom of the liner with inner walls in contact with the metal. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Grupp ,-i 73, Fig. 7 A). The Examiner finds Satoh discloses a shaped gate PET (citing Satoh Figs. 4D, 6D) and teaches that "the shaped gate PET can operate at high speed and can be highly integrated, the transductance is not degraded (citing Satoh, col. 2, 1. 66 to col. 3, 1. 10). Final Act. 3. The cited gate of Satoh, as shown in Figure 4D, is reproduced below: 5 We refer to the Final Office Action (mailed May 24, 2013), the Appeal Brief (filed December 12, 2013), the Examiner's Answer (mailed February 25, 2014), and the Reply Brief (filed April 24, 2014). 3 Appeal2014-006594 Application 12/021,728 FIG. 40 Satoh, Fig. 4D. As depicted in cross-section, the gate has an upper portion (3b) with parallel sides and a lower portion (3a) with a tapering section tapering to a second section with parallel sides. Satoh col. 5, 11. 5-8. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of Satoh to Grupp's gate for the benefit of the high speed operation and high degree of integration and doing so would arrive at the claimed invention (Final Act. 3), that is, a metal gate having an upper portion with parallel sides and a lower portion with a tapering section tapering to a second section with parallel sides bounded by a liner contacting the metal and having parallel outer walls from the top of the liner to the bottom of the liner. While conceding Satoh discloses a metal gate with "first parallel sidewalls, second parallel sidewalls, and a tapered profile portion which converges from the first parallel sidewalls to the second parallel sidewalls" Appellants argue that Satoh "does not disclose a liner" and does not disclose that it would be shaped like that claimed. App. Br. 11 (citing Satoh Fig. 4D). As to the liner disclosed in Grupp's Fig. 7 A, Appellants' contend it lacks complex shaped sidewalls as "the gate is a square or rectangular block." App. Br. 11. Appellants contend "arriving at a liner having the 4 Appeal2014-006594 Application 12/021,728 claimed shape requires the performance of several depositing, etching etc. steps" and that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the liner as claimed. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants argue that the Examiner has erred in making assumptions and is improperly relying on hindsight to arrive at the claimed invention. App. Br. 11-12. Having carefully considered the record, we find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive of reversible error because they fail to address the relied on combination of Grupp and Satoh in which Grupp' s liner's inner sidewalls, not the outer sidewalls, are altered to conform to the shape of the metal gate disclosed in Satoh. Final Act. 3. As such, Appellants' arguments do not address squarely what the combined teachings of Grupp and Satoh reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references."); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (The test for obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). As to Appellants' skeletal arguments that the claimed shape requires the performance of various steps, we find them without merit because they lack sufficient evidentiary support-as mere attorney argument-and because they are directed to limitations-steps to form recited structure- that do not appear in the claims. In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims."). 5 Appeal2014-006594 Application 12/021,728 Further, we note that rather than being silent as to a liner and its shape as Appellants contend (App. Br. 11 ), Satoh explicitly discloses silicon oxide film sidewalls 5 on the side walls of the gate electrode 3 (Satoh col. 9, 11. 21- 23; Fig. 8B) and Appellants fail to explain how the disclosed structure does not correspond to a liner where the Specification discloses that the liner 60 can be formed of oxide ... such as Si02 [silicon oxide]" (Spec. 7, 1. 20). As to Appellants' observation in the Reply Brief that the "Examiner contends that it seems the Applicant is arguing with regard to complex inner sidewalls instead of the outer sidewalls" (Reply Br. 2), the Examiner reasonably inferred that Appellants' argument was not that the outer sidewall of Grupp' s liner did not have the complex geometry, but rather that the inner sidewalls, i.e., the sides of the liner in contact with the gate, lacked the claimed geometry (Ans. 3). It follows that the skeletal argument reiterated in the Reply Brief that the structure and shape of a liner as specifically claimed is not suggested or disclosed (Reply Br. 2) is unpersuasive as explained above. Furthermore, it has been established that "the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom). For these reasons, it cannot be said that the Appellants have shown reversible error in the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in 6 Appeal2014-006594 Application 12/021,728 the art, armed with the knowledge of the cited prior art, would have been led to the subject matter recited in the appealed claims. See, e.g., In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). CONCLUSION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 ). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation