Ex Parte Prechtl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2018

14869457 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/869,457 09/29/2015 Gerhard Prechtl
57579 7590 01/02/2019
MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
CARY, NC 27518
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.
1012-1163 / 2015P51087 4938
us
EXAMINER
SEVEN, EVREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2812
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/02/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GERHARD PRECHTL and OLIVER HAEBERLEN
Appeal2018-001693
Application 14/869,457 1
Technology Center 2800
Before JANET A. GONGOLA, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge
JEFFREY T. SMITH and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-14, 18, and 20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
1 The Appellant and the real party in interest is INFINEON
TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA AG. (App. Br. 2).
2 Claims 4---6, 10, 15-17, and 19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-001693
Application 14/869,457
The appealed invention relates to a semiconductor device comprising
an III-V semiconductor body including a barrier disposed below the
uppermost metal layer and in or above the lowermost interlayer dielectric.
The barrier is configured to prevent water, water ions, sodium ions, and
potassium ions from diffusing into the interlayer dielectric or portion of the
interlayer dielectric immediately below the barrier. (Spec. ,r 10).
Independent claims 1 and 13 are representative of the appealed subject
matter. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
an III-V semiconductor body;
a device formed in the III-V semiconductor body;
one or more metal layers above the III-V semiconductor body;
an interlayer dielectric adjacent each metal layer;
a plurality of vias electrically connecting each metal layer to the
device formed in the III-V
semiconductor body; and
a barrier disposed below the uppermost metal layer and in or
above the lowermost interlayer dielectric, the barrier configured
to prevent water, water ions, sodium ions and potassium ions
from diffusing into the interlayer dielectric or portion of the
interlayer dielectric immediately below the barrier.
Claims Appendix to App. Br.
2
Appeal2018-001693
Application 14/869,457
Appellant (see App. Br., generally) requests review of the following
rejections: 3
I. Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 184 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Leobandung (US
2015/0325523 Al; Nov. 12, 2015) in view of Sun (US
2015/0206893 Al; July 23, 2015);
II. Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Leobandung and Sun, and further in view of Jensen
(US 2013/0288438 Al; Oct. 31, 2013).
III. Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Leobandung and Sun, and further in view of Chen (US
5,712,206; Jan. 27, 1998).
IV. Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Leobandung and Sun, and further in view of Akedo
(US 2008/0211066 Al; Sept. 4, 2008).
3 The rejections of Claim 11 under 35 U.S. C. § 112(a) and§ 103 have been
withdrawn. (Ans. 2).
4 The Examiner's header for this rejection omits claim 3. (Final Act. 3).
The Examiner's analysis, however, includes a discussion of claim 3. (Final
Act. 4 ). In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant asserts that the appealed clams
are patentable based on independent claims 1 and 13. (App. Br. 14). We
determine that the omission of claim 3 from the statement of rejection is
harmless error because the discussion of the rejection by the Examiner
includes claim 3.
3
Appeal2018-001693
Application 14/869,457
The complete statement of the rejections on appeal appear in
the Final Office Action. (Final Act. 3-8).
OPINION5
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we REVERSE the appealed rejections. Our reasons follow:
The Examiner found Leobandung teaches a semiconductor device
comprising an III-V semiconductor body that includes a barrier layer that is
different from the claimed invention. (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner found
Sun teaches a semiconductor body that includes a barrier layer disposed
below the uppermost metal layer and in or above the lowermost interlayer
dielectric. (Final Act. 4). In particular, the Examiner found Sun discloses a
SiN barrier layer configured to prevent water, water ions, sodium ions, and
potassium ions from diffusing into the interlayer dielectric or portion of the
interlayer dielectric immediately below the barrier layer. (Final Act. 4; Sun
,r 44.) The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to include the
barrier layer of Sun in the semiconductor device of Leobandung in order to
prevent migration of contaminants, as taught by Sun throughout. (Final Act.
4).
5 Appellant presents substantially the same arguments for independent
claims 1 and 13. (App. Br. 4--14). We select independent claim 1 as
representative of the rejected claims and limit our discussion to independent
claim 1.
4
Appeal2018-001693
Application 14/869,457
Appellant argues Leobandung and Sun are not concerned with the
susceptibility of III-V devices such as GaN-based semiconductors to
oxidation and other chemicals in the presence of high electric fields and
humidity. (App. Br. 7-8). Appellant argues Leobandung is not concerned
with the susceptibility of III-V devices to oxidation, utilizing instead the
oxidative effects of silicon to realize a sensing circuit with a programmable
shelf life. (App. Br. 7). Appellant argues Sun describes a ferrocapacitor is
encapsulated in hydrogen barrier films 250 and 237 to prevent the
degradation of the ferrocapacitor contained in the FRAM cell, particularly
when hydrogen is introduced during processing. (App. Br. 8; Sun ,r 44).
We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13 cannot be sustained. During examination, the
Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
"Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also, Ball Aerosol and Specialty
Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
("[T]he analysis that 'should be made explicit' refers not to the teachings in
the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court's analysis.").
Although the Examiner is correct that the motivation to combine the
teachings of the prior art does not have to be the same as those of Appellant,
the Examiner must provide an adequate explanation supported by evidence
that establishes the combination is appropriate. In the present case, neither
5
Appeal2018-001693
Application 14/869,457
Leobandung nor Sun teaches or suggests a barrier layer to prevent
contaminates such as water, water ions, sodium ions, and potassium ions
from diffusing into the interlayer dielectric or portion of the interlayer
dielectric immediately below the barrier layer as required by the claimed
invention. Leobandung and Sun are not concerned with preventing water,
water ions, sodium ions, and potassium ions from penetrating a III-V
semiconductor device. Contrary to the Examiner's position, Sun ,r 44
describes hydrogen barrier films and does not discuss the prevention of
water, water ions, sodium ions, and potassium ions from penetrating a III-V
semiconductor device. Starting with the semiconductor device described by
Leobandung, the Examiner has not adequately explained why a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have sought to include a hydrogen barrier
film, such as described by Sun. Leobandung utilizes the oxidative effects of
silicon to realize a sensing circuit with a programmable shelf life.
(Leobandung ,r 38). Sun is concerned with preventing hydrogen from
degenerating the ferrocapacitor of an FRAM cell by incorporating a
hydrogen barrier film. (Sun ,r 27). The Examiner has not explained that the
semiconductor device described by Leobandung was in an environment
where the presence of hydrogen would have created detrimental effects. The
Examiner has not identified evidence that suggests Leobandung is concerned
with the migration of contaminants and therefore would have looked to the
teachings of Sun to remedy this problem.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief, we determine
that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is not supported by facts.
"Where the legal conclusion [ of obviousness] is not supported by facts it
cannot stand." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
6
Appeal2018-001693
Application 14/869,457
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13 for the reasons presented by Appellant and given above.
We likewise reverse the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 7-9,
12, 14, 18, and 20 since these rejections are premised on the Examiner's
unsupported combination of Leobandung and Sun. We need not reach
whether the Examiner's reliance on other references in addition to
Leobandung and Sun for the rejection of dependent claims 12, 14, and 18
was supported by the evidence of record because the base combination of
Leobandung and Sun cannot stand.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-14,
18, and 20 are reversed.
REVERSED
7