Ex Parte Wang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201611735241 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111735,241 04/13/2007 25700 7590 04/04/2016 FARJ AMI & FARJAMI LLP 26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Connie Pin Chin Wang 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. 0180392 1578 EXAMINER BOOTH, RICHARD A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2812 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2016 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): docketing@farj ami. com farjamidocketing@yahoo.com ffarj ami @farj ami. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CONNIE PIN CHIN WANG, PAUL R. BESSER, SIMON SIU-SING CHAN, YOUSEOK SUH, and SHENQING FANG Appeal2014-005577 Application 11/735,241 1 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 11-12, 15-18, and 21-26. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to the Appeal Brief, the Real Party in Interest is GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. and Spansion LLC. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005577 Application 11/735,241 BACKGROUND Appellants' invention relates a memory system comprising an insulator over the substrate, a gate layer over the insulator, a stability layer over the gate layer, and a conductive layer over the stability layer. (Spec. ii 11.) According to Appellants this structure improves chemical stability of the memory system. (Spec. ii 30.) Claims 11 and 21 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the principal Brief: 11. A memory system comprising: a substrate; an insulator over the substrate; a polysilicon gate layer over the insulator; a tungsten nitride (WN) stability layer formed on the polysilicon gate layer; and a conductive layer over the tungsten nitride stability layer. 21. A memory system comprising: a substrate; an insulator over the substrate; a gate layer over the insulator; a tungsten nitride (WN) stability over the gate layer; a tungsten-flash (W-Flash) protective layer between the gate layer and the tungsten nitride stability layer; and 2 Appeal2014-005577 Application 11/735,241 a conductive layer over the tungsten nitride stability layer. The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection of I. Claims 11-12 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lin (US 6,025,241 issued Feb.15, 2000). II. Claims 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Maekawa (US 6,975,007 B2 issued Dec. 13, 2005). III. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lin. OPINION2 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the anticipation rejections of claims 11-12, 16-18, and 21-26 and obviousness rejection of claim 15. The anticipation rejections on appeal appear in the Final Action and the Answer. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-5). The proper test of a publication as a § 102(b) bar is whether one skilled in the art to which the invention pertains could take the description of the invention in the printed publication and combine it with his own knowledge of the particular art and from this combination be put in possession of the invention on which a patent is sought. In re Elsner, 381F.3d1125, 1128 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 939 (CCPA 1962)). In particular, in view of the publication, one 2 Appellants present arguments directed only to independent claims 11 and 21. Appellants have not addressed separately rejected claim 15. See Appeal Brief, generally. We limit our discussion to the independent claims 11 and 21. 3 Appeal2014-005577 Application 11/735,241 must be able to make the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Elsner, 381 F.3d at 1128. Disclosures of"certain specific preferences" are relevant to an anticipation inquiry. In re Petering, 301F.2d676, 681 (CCPA 1962); see also In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 316-17 (CCPA 1978) (holding that preferences can also be set forth by the claims). Rejection I3 The Examiner found Lin describes a semiconductor device comprising an insulator over the substrate, a gate layer over the insulator, a stability layer over the gate layer, and a conductive layer over the stability layer. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 4; col. 3, 11. 19-33). Lin specifically states: The gate 21 is formed by first forming an oxide layer 24; then depositing a first conductive layer 25, such as a doped polysilicon layer, over the oxide layer 24; and finally depositing a second conductive layer 26 over the first conductive layer 25. The second conductive layer 26 can be a layer of an alloy of tungsten and silicon (WSi) with a barrier layer between Wand poly, a layer of tungsten (W), the barrier layer can be a layer of titaniumnitride (TiN), a layer of titanium silicide (TiSi2), or a layer of tungsten nitride (WN). Next, a dielectric layer 27, such as an oxide layer or a nitride layer, is formed over the second conductive layer 26. The oxide layer 24, the first conductive layer 25, the second conductive layer 26, and the dielectric layer 27 in combination constitute the gate 21 of the MOS transistor. 3 We note Appellants consider the Examiner has inserted new rejection in the Final Office action. (App. Br. 6). Questions regarding actions taken by the Examiner, such as the insertion of a new ground of rejection, is petitionable under 37 CPR§ 1.181 to the Commissioner. Since Appellants have failed to timely file a petition, we will address the rejections as presented in the Examiner's Answer. 4 Appeal2014-005577 Application 11/735,241 (col. 3, 11. 19-33) Appellants argue Lin does not accurately recite the sequence of layers required by the claim. (App. Br. 8-9). Regarding the above reproduced portion of Lin, Appellants argue "the only description of conductive layer 26 provided in the whole of Lin is incomprehensible, and fails to disclose any specific material composition with objectively intelligible specificity. (App. Br. 8). Appellants' arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. A person of ordinary skill in the art, having reviewed Lin's description of the second conductive layer 26, would have envisaged the formation of the second conductive layer having a layer of an alloy of tungsten and silicon (WSi) with a barrier layer of tungsten nitride (WN). For the reasons presented by the Examiner and those presented above, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 11-12 and 16-18. Rejection II Appellants argue Maekawa fails to disclose or suggest a structure in which a tungsten-flash protective layer is formed between a gate layer and a tungsten nitride stability layer. (App. Br. 11-12). Appellants specifically argue: Independent claim 21 clearly indicates that the present inventive concepts include a tungsten-flash "protective" layer between the gate layer and the tungsten nitride stability layer, and insertion of a silicon containing layer such as that suggested by Maekawa would compromise the recited protective nature of the tungsten-flash layer required by independent claim 21. 5 Appeal2014-005577 Application 11/735,241 (App. Br. 12). Appellants' arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner found Maekawa semiconductor device comprising: a substrate 1; an insulator layer 3 over the substrate; a gate layer 4 over the insulator; a tungsten nitride stability layer 11 over the gate layer; a tungsten-flash protective layer 12 between the gate layer and the tungsten nitride stability layer; and a conductive layer 13 over the tungsten nitride stability layer (see figs. 16-19 and col. 8-line 1 to col. 9-line 41). (Final Act. 3). The Examiner specifically found layer 12 was "a tungsten-flash protective layer" between the gate layer and the tungsten nitride stability layer. (Final Act. 3). Appellants have failed to provide a technical explanation describing why layer 12 was not "a tungsten-flash protective layer" as indicated by the Examiner. For the reasons presented by the Examiner and those presented above we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 21-26. Rejection III Appellants have not provided arguments addressing the specific limitations of claim 15. Appellants assert claim 15 is patentable for the same reasons as independent claim 11. As stated above we did not find Appellants' arguments regarding the patentability of claim 11 persuasive. Consequently we sustain the rejection of claim 15 for the reasons presented by the Examiner and stated above. 6 Appeal2014-005577 Application 11/735,241 CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejections of claims 11-12, 16-18 and 21-26 and the obviousness rejection of claim 15. 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