Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2022

2021003456 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/859,325 12/29/2017 Subhash JOSHI AA6118-US 111548-236871 7163 31817 7590 03/23/2022 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. 1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 EXAMINER TRAN, TONY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2894 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2022 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): IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com intelparalegal@schwabe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SUBHASH JOSHI, MICHAEL J. JACKSON, and MICHAEL L. HATTENDORF __________ Appeal 2021-003456 Application 15/859,325 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-5 and 8. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appellant’s invention is directed to an integrated circuit structure (Spec. ¶ 2; claim 1). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. An integrated circuit structure, comprising: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-003456 Application 15/859,325 2 a fin comprising silicon, the fin having a lower fin portion and an upper fin portion; a gate electrode over the upper fin portion of the fin, the gate electrode having a first side opposite a second side; a first epitaxial source or drain structure embedded in the fin at the first side of the gate electrode; a second epitaxial source or drain structure embedded in the fin at the second side of the gate electrode, the first and second epitaxial source or drain structures comprising silicon and germanium and having a match-stick profile, the match-stick profile comprising a lower portion and an upper portion, the lower portion having substantially vertical sidewalls and a first width, and the upper portion having curved sidewalls and a second width, the second width greater than the first width; a first dielectric spacer continuous along sidewalls of a first portion of the fin and along a lower portion of sidewalls of the first epitaxial source or drain structure; and a second dielectric spacer continuous along sidewalls of a second portion of the fin and along a lower portion of sidewalls of the second epitaxial source or drain structure. Appellant appeals the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 3-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ghani (US 2016/0056156 A1, pub. Feb. 25, 2016) in view of Jacob (US 2017/0243791 A1, pub. Aug. 24, 2017). 2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ghani in view of Jacob, and Kim (US 2017/0092728 A1, pub. Mar. 30, 2017). FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejection for reversible error based on the arguments and evidence presented by Appellant. 37 C.F.R. Appeal 2021-003456 Application 15/859,325 3 § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”). The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the subject matter of claim 1 are located on pages 2-4 of the Final Action. The Examiner finds in relevant part that Ghani teaches an integrated circuit structure having first and second epitaxial source or drain structures embedded in a fin (Final Act. 2). The Examiner finds that Ghani does not teach first and second epitaxial source or drain structures having a match-stick profile, the match-stick profile comprising a lower portion and an upper portion, the lower portion having substantially vertical sidewalls and a first width, and the upper portion having curved sidewalls and a second width, the second width greater than the first width; and a first dielectric spacer continuous along sidewalls of a first portion of the fin and along a lower portion of sidewalls of the first epitaxial source or drain structure; and a second dielectric spacer continuous along sidewalls of a second portion of the fin and along a lower portion of sidewalls of the second epitaxial source or drain structure. (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Jacob teaches first and second epitaxial source and drain structures having a match-stick profile wherein the match-stick profile comprises a lower portion 106 having substantially vertical sidewalls and upper portion 122 having curved sidewalls as depicted in the Examiner’s annotated Figure 2F (Final Act. 3). Appeal 2021-003456 Application 15/859,325 4 Jacob’s Figure 2F as annotated by the Examiner on page 3 of the Final Action. Jacob’s Figure 2F as annotated by the Examiner shows a curved upper portion of the first and second source/drain regions and vertical lower portion of the fin structure. The Examiner finds that the lower portion of the fin 106 has vertical sidewalls and the upper portion of source/drain epi semiconductor material 122 has curved structure (Final Act. 3). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to include Jacob’s teachings regarding the shape of the source/drain epi semiconductor in Ghani’s circuit because Jacob teaches the source/drain epi semiconductor material 122 may have a variety of other configurations other than the diamond-like cross-sectional configuration (Final Act. 4). Appellant argues that Jacob’s lower portion of source/drain epi semiconductor material 122 has outwardly tapering sidewalls and not substantially vertical sidewalls (Appeal Br. 8). We begin our analysis by construing claim 1. Claim 1 recites: a fin . . . having a lower fin portion and un upper fin portion; . . .a first epitaxial source or drain structure embedded in the fin . . Appeal 2021-003456 Application 15/859,325 5 . a second epitaxial source or drain structure embedded in the fin . . . first and second epitaxial source or drain structures . . . having a match-stick profile, the match-stick profile comprising a lower portion and an upper portion, the lower portion having substantially vertical sidewalls and a first width, and the upper portion having curved sidewalls . . . . Claim 1 includes a fin having a lower fin portion and an upper fin portion. Claim 1 further includes a first and second source or drain regions having a match-stick profile where lower portions of the first and second source or drain regions have vertical sidewalls and upper portions of the first and second source or drain region have curved sidewalls. Claim 1 plainly recites that the lower fin portion is a separate claim limitation from the lower portions of the first and second source or drain regions. With this claim construction in mind, the Examiner’s finding that fin 106 is a contact layer of the source/drain semiconductor material 122 is contrary to Appellant’s disclosure and how claim 1 should be interpreted. Appellant’s Specification discloses in Figure 10 having source or drain region 1004 and fins 1002 below (Spec. ¶ 190). Appellant’s Figure 11 discloses a first epitaxial source or drain structure 1104 and a second epitaxial source or drain structure embedded in the first fin 1102 (Spec. ¶ 193). The Specification discloses that a first epitaxial source or drain structure is embedded in the first fin 1102 at a first side of the first gate electrode and a second epitaxial source or drain structure is embedded in the first fin 1102 at a second side of the first gate electrode opposite the first side (Spec. ¶ 193). Figure 12C depicts a lower portion 1208A of epitaxial source or drain structure 1208 having sidewalls (Spec. ¶ 200). The Specification recognizes that the first fin 1102 and the epitaxial source and drain structures are not one and the same structure. Appeal 2021-003456 Application 15/859,325 6 The Examiner incorrectly reads Jacob’s fin 106 as part of the source and drain material structure. In fact, Jacob teaches forming the source or drain material 122 on the fins (¶ 34). In other words, Jacob teaches that the source or drain material and the fin are separate features that may be brought together in the final product. However, the portion of Jacob’s fin is not reasonably construed as part of the source and drain structures. We have reviewed Jacob’s disclosure including paragraph 34 cited by the Examiner and we find no teaching that fin 106 is “a contact layer of 122, therefore, [122+106] is considered as a source/drain region.” (Ans. 4). Therefore, the Examiner has not shown where Ghani and Jacob teach a first and a second epitaxial source or drain structure having a lower portion with substantially vertical sidewalls. We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejections. DECISION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 8 103 Ghani, Jacob 1, 3-5, 8 2 103 Ghani, Jacob, Kim 2 Overall Outcome 1-5, 8 REVERSED