Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2017

13617180 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2017)

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.
13/617,180 09/14/2012 Guy Cohen YOR920120446US2 3345
63919 7590
MICHAEL J. CHANG, LLC
84 SUMMIT AVENUE
MILFORD, CT 06460
09/18/2017 EXAMINER
STARK, JARRETT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2017 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY COHEN
and SIMONE RAOUX
Appeal 2017-002762
Application 13/617,180
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—7 and 9-15. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claimed subject matter is directed to a structure comprising, inter alia, a
film of a single-crystal phase change material over an insulator, wherein the single­
crystal phase change material makes up a plurality of cells of an electronic device.
The Appellants define a single-crystal phase change material as “a phase change
Appeal 2017-002762
Application 13/617,180
material having the same crystal structure anywhere throughout the film.” Spec.
134.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated March 1, 2016 (“Br.”). The limitation at issue is italicized.
1. A structure, comprising:
a substrate;
an insulator over the substrate; and
a film of a single-crystal phase change material in direct contact
with the insulator, wherein the single-crystal phase change material
has a same crystal structure anywhere throughout the film, wherein
the single-crystal phase change material makes up a plurality of cells
of an electronic device, and wherein the single-crystal phase change
material has the same crystal structure in every one of the cells and
thus a same crystal orientation in every one of the cells, such that the
crystal structure and the crystal orientation of the single-crystal phase
change material are the same from one cell to another.
Br. 10.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1—3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lam et al.1 and
(2) claims 1—7 and 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lung2 in view of Lam.
The rejections are sustained for the reasons stated in the Final Office Action
dated September 2, 2015 (“Final”) and the Examiner’s Answer dated November 2,
2016 (“Br.”). We add the following for emphasis.
1 US 2011/0108792 Al, published May 12, 2011 (“Lam”).
2 US 2011/0165753 Al, published July 7, 2011 (“Lung”).
2
Appeal 2017-002762
Application 13/617,180
B. DISCUSSION
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding that Lam describes a structure comprising, inter alia, a single-crystal phase
change material making up a plurality of cells of an electronic device,
wherein the single-crystal phase change material has the same crystal
structure in every one of the cells and thus a same crystal orientation
in every one of the cells, such that the crystal structure and the crystal
orientation of the single-crystal phase change material are the same
from one cell to another.
Final 3^4 (citing Lam Fig. 10 and Lam 127); see also Final 4 (finding that “[t]he
cells are all simultaneously formed [and] thus are implicitly identical”).
The Appellants argue that “while Lam teaches that their phase change
material can be single crystal, there is absolutely no correlation between the crystal
orientation of the phase change material in different cells.” Br. 6. More
specifically, the Appellants argue that in their process, “a film of a single-crystal
phase change material is first formed, and then is divided into the plurality of
cells.” Br. 6. In contrast, the Appellants argue that Lam teaches forming a single
crystal in each of a plurality of via holes that is smaller than the typical crystal size
for the selected phase change material. Br. 6 (citing Lam 121). Although there
may be a single crystal in each of Lam’s via holes, the Appellants argue there is
“no correlation in crystal orientation between the material in the via holes ...,
since the material is being formed separately/independently in each of the via
holes.” Br. 6—7. Thus, the Appellants argue that the single-crystal material of Lam
“would be randomly oriented amongst the via holes.” Br. 7.
Referring to Lam Figure 7, Lam discloses:
[A] phase change material 701 is deposited in the via holes 601, as
shown in cross-section 700 of FIG. 7. Phase change material 701
comprises a single crystal of a phase change material.... Phase
3
Appeal 2017-002762
Application 13/617,180
change material 701 may be formed using CVD or ALD methods.
The CVD/ALD precursors used to form phase change material 701
and the material comprising electrode 201 are chosen such that
selective crystalline growth of phase change material 701 occurs
directly on electrode 201 in via hole 601.
Lam 125 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds that:
As disclosed in Lam, each cell is formed simultaneously (fig. 1,
step 104, fig. 7, element 701, para [0025]), therefore, inherently and
unavoidably under identical conditions. Each cell would yield the
same resultant structure since all cells are formed at the same time
under identical conditions. Since each cell is explicitly stated to be a
single crystalline material, it follows that each cell will comprise the
same, identical single crystalline material. Because a single
crystalline material has a constant lattice and orientation (otherwise it
would not be ‘single crystal’), it is unavoidable that the crystalline
material in each cell, which was formed simultaneously under
identical conditions, will have the same identical structure and
orientation.
Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted).
Significantly, the Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s
finding that the single-crystal phase change material in each of Lam’s cells is
formed simultaneously under identical conditions, and thus inherently has the same
crystal structure and the same crystal orientation. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,
708 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“when the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the
products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the
burden of showing that they are not”). For that reason, the rejections on appeal are
sustained.
C. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
4
Appeal 2017-002762
Application 13/617,180
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).
AFFIRMED
5