Ex Parte Chan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 13, 2012

10703289 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 13, 2012)

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.
10/703,289 11/06/2003 Tze Ho Chan 1016-023 9927
22898 7590 01/17/2012
LAW OFFICES OF MIKIO ISHIMARU
2055 GATEWAY PLACE
SUITE 700
SAN JOSE, CA 95110
EXAMINER
VU, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/17/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte TZE HO CHAN, WEINING LI, ELGIN QUEK,
JIA ZHEN ZHENG, PRADEEP RAMACHANDRAMURTHY, and
TOMMY LAI
_____________

Appeal 2009-013294
Application 10/703,289
Technology Center 2800
______________

Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD Jr., Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013294
Application 10/703,289

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 10.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for manufacturing an integrated
circuit on a semiconductor substrate by forming a pair of trenches such that
the active region is between the trenches and implanting the source in one of
the trenches and the drain in the other trench. See pages 3 and 4 of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for manufacturing an integrated circuit structure,
comprising:
providing a semiconductor substrate;
forming a pair of trenches in the semiconductor substrate to
define an active region therebetween;
forming an implanted source region in one of the trenches on
one side of the active region;
forming an opposing implanted drain region in the other trench
on the other side of the active region opposite the implanted source
region in the one trench;
forming shallow trench isolations in the trenches;
forming at least one gate extending laterally across the active
region and the implanted source and drain regions; and
forming respective contacts to the implanted source region and
the implanted drain region.

REFERENCES
JANG US 5,786,262 Jul. 28, 1998
MEHRAD US 6,268,248 B1 Jul. 31, 2001
MEHRAD ET AL US 6,566,200 B2 May 20, 2003

Appeal 2009-013294
Application 10/703,289

3

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Mehrad. The Examiner’s rejection is on
pages 3 through 4 of the Answer. 1
ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 6 is in error. 2 These
arguments present us with the issue: Did the Examiner error in finding
Mehrad teaches an implanted drain region in a trench on one side of the
active region and the implanted source region in a trench on the other side of
the active region? 3

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs and we concur
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the Mehrad
teaches the method of implanting a drain region in a trench on one side of
the active region and the implanting a source region in a trench on the other
side of the active region as claimed.

1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Answer dated February 19, 2009.
2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated November 12, 2008
and Reply Brief dated April 20, 2009.

3 We note that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection erroneously includes a
statement regarding other limitations being obvious. However, we do not
sua sponte reach this issue as the issue argued by Appellant is dispositive of
the appeal.
Appeal 2009-013294
Application 10/703,289

4

The Examiner finds that Figure 2 and 3 of Mehrad teach this feature,
specifically that source (region 60, item 12) is implanted in one trench (item
70), on one side of the active region (region 64) and a drain (region 62; item
14) is implanted in another or second trench (item 70). Answer 4-5. While
we concur with the Examiner that regions 60, 64, and 62 are source, active
and drain regions, we disagree that they are formed in trenches as recited in
the claims. However, we note that Mehrad’s items 12 and 14 are in the
substrate and not a trench as claimed; further, item 72 is the trench not item
70, item 70 is actually a shallow trench isolation structure (see col. 5, ll. 4-
13, col. 6, ll. 10-12). Further, as pointed out by Appellants in the Reply
Brief, Mehrad does not teach that the active region has a trench with the
source on one side of the trench with a drain on the other side of the trench
as claimed. Rep. Br. 4. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 6.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1 through 10.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 10 is
reversed.

REVERSED

ke