Ex Parte Ohtani et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 5, 2009

09379702 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 5, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte HISASHI OHTANI and TORU MITSUKI
________________

Appeal 2009-0328
Application 09/379,702
Technology Center 2800
________________

Decided1: February 5, 2009
________________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and KARL
D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 45 to 64.
The disclosed invention relates to a semiconductor device that
comprises a first insulating film over a crystalline semiconductor island, a
second insulating film over the first insulating film, and a gate electrode over
the insulating films (Figs. 1E and 2D; Spec. 15 to 17). The first insulating
film has a side aligned with a side of the crystalline semiconductor island,

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-0328
Application 09/379,702
and the second insulating film extends beyond an edge of the first insulating
film (Fig. 2D).
Claim 45 is representative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
45. A semiconductor device comprising:
a crystalline semiconductor island comprising silicon over a substrate,
the crystalline semiconductor island comprising a source region, a drain
region, and a channel formation region provided between the source and the
drain region; and
a gate insulating film comprising a first insulating film over the
crystalline semiconductor island and a second insulating film over the first
insulating film; and
a gate electrode over the gate insulating film,
wherein the first insulating film has a side aligned with a side of the
crystalline semiconductor island, and
wherein the second insulating film extends beyond an edge of the first
insulating film.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yamazaki US 5,315,132 May 24, 1994
Matsumoto US 5,396,084 Mar. 7, 1995
The Examiner rejected claims 45 to 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Yamazaki and Matsumoto.
The Examiner acknowledges (Ans. 4) that “Yamazaki does not
disclose a gate insulating film comprising a second insulating film extending
beyond an edge of the first insulating film,” and cites Matsumoto for such a
teaching. Appellants argue inter alia (Substitute Br. 4) that the applied
2
Appeal 2009-0328
Application 09/379,702
reference to Matsumoto uses two insulating films that “cover the entire
surface of the chip.”
Yamazaki describes the use of a single gate insulating film 3 in a
crystalline semiconductor island of a semiconductor device (Fig. 3; Abstract;
col. 6, ll. 8 to 34). Matsumoto describes the use of two gate insulating films
14 and 19 in a thin film semiconductor device 2 (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 15 to 57).
The two insulating films in Matsumoto are formed on the “entire” surface of
the semiconductor device (col. 3, ll. 24 to 44).
Inasmuch as the second insulating film 19 extends over the “entire”
surface of the first insulating film 14 in Matsumoto, and is presumably the
same size as the first insulating film 14, the combined teachings of the
references lack a second insulating film that “extends beyond an edge of the
first insulating film” as set forth in all of the claims on appeal. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 45 to 64 is reversed because the applied
references neither teach nor would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art the claimed subject matter, and because the Examiner’s articulated
reasoning for the rejection does not support a legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 ( 2007).
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

gvw
FISH & RICHARDSON, PC
P. O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
3