Ex Parte Roizin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 201311338418 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte YAKOV ROIZIN, YOSI NETZER, IRA NAOT, MYRIAM BUCHBINDER, and AVI BEN-GUIGUI ____________ Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 1-11 and 14-18. Appeal Brief 4.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a back end structure for a single-poly non- volatile memory (NVM) cell. Specification 5. Illustrative Claim 1. A semiconductor device comprising: a semiconductor substrate; a single patterned conductive gate layer that provides all gates of the semiconductor device, including one or more floating gates located over the semiconductor substrate; a first dielectric layer located over the patterned conductive gate layer; an amorphous silicon layer located over the first dielectric layer, wherein the amorphous silicon layer overlies the one or more floating gates; and 1 Appellants appeal claims 1-20. Appeal Brief 4. However, claims 12, 13, 19 and 20 have not been rejected by the Examiner. Answer 3-8. Further, Appellants present no arguments as to the patentability of claim 12, 13, 19 and 20. Therefore claims 12, 13, 19 and 20 are not before us because they have not been rejected by the Examiner. Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 3 a second dielectric layer located over the amorphous silicon layer. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. Patent Number 5,051,793; issued September 24, 1991), Hui (U.S. Patent Number 6,765,254 B1; issued July 20, 2004), and Boland (U.S. Patent Number 3,743,847; issued July 3, 1973). Answer 4-6. Claims 10, 14, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Hui, Boland, and Ngo (U.S. Patent Number 6,774,432 B1; issued August 10, 2004). Answer 6-8. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Hui, Boland, and Hasunuma (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0046215 A1; published March 11, 2004). Answer 8-9. Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Hui, Boland, Ngo, and Hasunuma. Answer 9. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Hui, Boland, and Kuroda (U.S. Patent Number 5,825,059; issued October 20, 1998). Answer 10. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang, Hui, Boland, Ngo, and Kuroda. Answer 10-11. Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 4 Issue on Appeal Does the base combination of Wang, Hui, and Boland, either alone or in combination, discloses “a single patterned conductive gate layer that provides all gates of the semiconductor device, including one or more floating gates located over the semiconductor substrate” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue that, “the overlapping structure specified by the floating electrode 20 and the control gate 18 of Wang could not be formed by ‘a single patterned conductive gate layer that provides all gates of the semiconductor device’ as recited by Claim 1.” Appeal Brief 12. Appellants conclude that Wang fails to teach the single patterned conductive gate layer as recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner finds that the scope of the claimed structure is not limited by the method relied upon to form the gates. Answer 12. The Examiner finds that Wang teaches a gate layer comprising a control gate as well as two adjacent polysilicon floating gates. Id. We agree with the Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 5 Examiner’s finding and do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because the manufacturing of the device does not determine the patentability of the device. See M.P.E.P. § 2113. Appellants argue that: Hui et al. clearly teach that the UV radiation blocking layer 112 should have a low hydrogen level. In view of the teachings of Hui et al., one of ordinary skill would not replace the UV radiation blocking layer 112 with a layer having a relatively high hydrogen level, as such a layer would result in the deficiencies explicitly described by Hui et al. Appeal Brief 13-14. Appellants further contend that because: Boland teaches that an amorphous silicon film 11 is deposited by gas phase deposition in which silane (SiH4) is the source of silicon. (Boland, Col. 4, lines 47-48.) During such gas phase deposition, hydrogen is necessarily present, as the silane (SiH4) must be broken down into silicon and hydrogen. Because Hui et al. teach away from a high hydrogen level in the UV radiation blocking layer 112, and Boland requires the presence of hydrogen during formation of the amorphous silicon film 11, it would not be obvious to replace the low-hydrogen silicon-rich TCS nitride UV radiation blocking layer 112 of Hui et al. with the amorphous silicon film 11 of Boland. For this additional reason, Claim 1 is allowable over Wang in view of Hui et al. and Boland. The Examiner argues that “the applicant has not provided evidence that hydrogen is necessarily present in the amorphous silicon film and even so to what degree constituting ‘low’ or ‘high’”. (Final Office Action, page 4, lines 9-11.) Regardless of what degree constitutes ‘low’ or ‘high’, Hui et al. teach that the presence of hydrogen is undesirable, and Boland teach that presence of hydrogen is required. For this reason, one of ordinary skill would be Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 6 dissuaded from replacing the method of Hui et al. with the method described by Boland. Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds: Appellant has not provided any evidence that hydrogen is necessarily present within the amorphous silicon layer. Even assuming arguendo that hydrogen is necessarily present within the amorphous silicon layer, the Appellant has not provided any evidence that hydrogen if in the amorphous silicon layer would diffuse in the same manner as hydrogen being present in a silicon-rich TCS nitride layer. Hui only compares his silicon-rich TCS nitride having a low hydrogen level with that of conventional DCS nitride. Regardless, Hui teaches that hydrogen is present in the silicon-rich TCS nitride. The Appellant further has not provided any evidence, even if hydrogen is present in the amorphous silicon layer, that the device will not function or that hydrogen if present within the amorphous silicon layer of Boland is at a level different than the level that is present in the Hui reference. Answer 14-15. We agree with the Examiner’s findings because Appellants have not presented any evidence that would support their position that amorphous silicon hydrogen levels surpass the acceptable levels disclosed with Hui and therefore we do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). “Attorney’s argument . . . cannot take the place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (citation omitted). Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as, dependent claims 2-7 and 11, not separately argued. Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 7 Appellants argue that Ngo fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wang, Hui, and Boland and therefore dependent claims 10, 14, 15, and 18 are allowable. Appeal Brief 15-16. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because we did not find Wang, Hui, and Boland deficient and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10, 14, 15, and 18 for the reasons stated above. Appellants argue that, it would not be obvious to combine Hasunuma, Wang, Hui, and Boland because, “Hasunuma et al. explicitly teach that the anti-HF sidewall film 51 is not required when forming a contact (e.g., bit line 9) to a conventional source/drain region 6. (Hasunuma et al., paragraph [0064], Fig. 7.).” Appeal Brief 17. The Examiner finds that Hasunuma (“paragraph 64 and Fig. 7”) does not explicitly teach that the sidewall film 51 is not required when forming a contact. Answer 17. Hasunuma’s paragraph [0064] is reproduced below: [0064] Then, referring to Fig. 7, a contact hole reaching one of the pair of n type source/drain regions 6 is formed through oxide film 7 and interlayer oxide film 8, and a bit line 9 of a conductive layer such as aluminum is formed to be connected to one of the pair of n type source/drain regions 6. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because Hasunuma does not teach that the sidewall film is not required. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Appellants argue that Hasunuma fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wang, Hui, and Boland and therefore dependent claim 16 is allowable. Appeal Brief 18-19. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive Appeal 2010-010550 Application 11/338,418 8 because we did not find Wang, Hui and Boland deficient and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 16 for the reasons stated above. Appellants argue that Kuroda fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wang, Hui, and Boland and therefore dependent claims 8 and 9 are allowable. Appeal Brief 19. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because we did not find Wang, Hui, and Boland deficient and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 8 and 9 for the reasons stated above. Appellants argue that Kuroda fails to remedy the deficiencies of Wang, Hui, Boland, and Ngo and therefore dependent claims 16 and 17 are allowable. Appeal Brief 19-20. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because we did not find Wang, Hui, and Boland deficient and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 16 and 17 for the reasons stated above. DECISION The obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation