Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

11735241 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

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