Ex Parte Pellizzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2018

14578704 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/578,704 12/22/2014 Fabio Pellizzer
73115 7590 06/21/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/MICRON
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
303.C98US2 3191
EXAMINER
HUBER, ROBERT T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/21/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABIO PELLIZZER, MARCELLO MARIANI, and
GIORGIO SERV ALLI
Appeal2017-009083
Application 14/578, 704
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1-17. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed December 22, 2014
("Spec."), the Final Office Action dated May 2, 2016 ("Final Act."), the
Appeal Brief filed Oct. 3, 2016 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer dated
Dec. 1, 2016 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Micron Technology, Inc., which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Br. 2.
3 Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner. Final
Act. 1.
Appeal2017-009083
Application 14/578, 704
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal relates to a double patterning method to
form sub-lithographic pillars (Spec. ,r 16). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A structure of vertical bipolar junction transistors, the
structure comprising:
a regular array of base contact pillars and a regular array of
emitter contact pillars, the base contact pillars and the
emitter contact pillars each having a width below a
minimum lithographical resolution, F;
a first level base contact plug in electrical contact with a
plurality of the base contact pillars; and
a storage element located above the regular array of base
contact pillars and the regular array of emitter contact
pillars.
Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2);
2. Claims 1---6, 8, 9, and 11-15 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as anticipated by Pellizzer et al. (US 2007/0254446 Al,
published Nov. 1, 2007) ("Pellizzer") (Final Act. 4--9; Ans. 2);
3. Claims 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Pellizzer (Final Act. 9-11; Ans. 2); and
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Pellizzer (Final Act. 12; Ans. 2).
2
Appeal2017-009083
Application 14/578, 704
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1 under§ 112, second paragraph
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1-17 as a group. Br. 7-10.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 14 each recite the same limitation, which forms
the basis of the Examiner's indefinite rejection: "the base contact pillars and
the emitter contact pillars each having a width below a minimum
lithographical resolution, F". Br. 16-18 (Claims App.). We therefore limit
our discussion to claim 1. Independent claims 5 and 14, as well as the
dependent claims, stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013).
The statute requires that "claims particularly point[] out and distinctly
claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention."
35 U.S.C. § 112, ,r 2 (2011). During prosecution, "'[a] claim is indefinite
when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear."' Ex parte
McAward, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25,
2017) (precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (per curiam)).
The Examiner finds the claim phrase "the base contact pillars and the
emitter contact pillars each having a width below a minimum lithographical
resolution, F" renders the claims indefinite because "minimum
lithographical resolution" is "not defined by the claim" and "the
specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite
[minimum lithographical resolution, F]" (Final Act 2-3; see also Ans. 2--4).
The Appellant argues that the claim phrase "below a minimum
lithographical resolution, F" is not indefinite because a skilled artisan could
3
Appeal2017-009083
Application 14/578, 704
determine the limit/minimum F of the resolution of a lithographical system
f . L o.61A h rom a common equat10n r = -- , w ere
2*NA
A is the imaging wavelength of the lithographic system ( e.g. a
deep-ultraviolet (DUV) excimer laser in a photolithographic
stepper or scanner [that] may have a wavelength of 193 nm or
248 nm), and NA is the numerical aperture of the lens ( as seen
from the perspective of the wafer)
(Br. 8). 4 In addition, the Appellant notes that the numerical aperture is
calculated using the equation NA = n sin e, "where n is the index of
infraction in which the lens is 'operating,' (n = 1.00 for air), and e is the
maximal half-angle of the cone of light that can exit the lens" (id.).
The Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. The
equations described by the Appellant merely establish that it is possible to
calculate a minimum lithographical resolution. The Appellant, however, has
not identified where the equations and variables are disclosed or defined by
the Specification or established that the given equations are well-known
standard equations used for determining the minimum lithographical
resolution. Absent such information, one of ordinary skill in the art is
unable to determine the metes and bounds of the phrase "the base contact
pillars and the emitter contact pillars each having a width below a minimum
lithographical resolution" recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues that the "skilled artisan would readily understand
that, for any lithography tool (for example, a photolithographic stepper or
scanner), the exact values of land NA are known for the particular
lithography tool and lens combination ( or can readily be looked up for the
combination)" (Br. 9). This argument is not persuasive because the
4 Citing Eugene Hecht, Optics § 10.2.6 (2d ed. 1987).
4
Appeal2017-009083
Application 14/578, 704
Specification does not provide sufficient guidance for ascertaining the types
of lithography tool and lens combinations that could be used with
Appellant's claimed structure.
Based upon the equations provided by the Appellant and the guidance
given in Appellant's Specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
need to speculate about an objective boundary or a standard for measuring
the scope encompassed by the phrase "the base contact pillars and the
emitter contact pillars having a width below a minimum lithographical
resolution, F" recited in independent claims 1, 5, and 14. Thus, we conclude
that independent claims 1, 5 and 14 fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2--4, 6-13 and 15-1 7 depend from the independent claims and,
likewise, are indefinite.
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is sustained.
The Rejections 2-4 under§ 102(b) and/or§ 103(a)
For the reasons discussed above, claims 1-17 are indefinite. Thus, we
do not sustain prior art Rejections 2--4 because to do so would require
speculative assumptions as to the meaning and scope of the claims. In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (holding that a prior art rejection
cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of
claim language). We emphasize that our reversal of the rejections is because
5
Appeal2017-009083
Application 14/578, 704
the claims are indefinite; hence, we do not reach a decision on the merits of
the prior art rejections of claims 1-17.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 11-15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Pellizzer is reversed.
The rejection of claims 7, 16, and 17 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Pellizzer is reversed.
The rejection of claim 10 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Pellizzer is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6