Ex Parte Fitzgerald

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 28, 2012

10854556 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte EUGENE A. FITZGERALD
____________________

Appeal 2010-004107
Application 10/854,556
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and JENNIFER S. BISK,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004107
Application 10/854,556
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 60, 61, 63-65, and 70-82, which are all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 1-59, 62, and 66-69 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “fabricating high speed digital,
analog, and combined digital/analog systems using planarized relaxed SiGe
as the materials platform.” Abstract.
Claim 60, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
60. A method of fabricating contact regions for a FET, the method
comprising:
providing a substrate;
providing a gate stack disposed above a first area of said substrate,
the gate stack comprising a gate oxide disposed beneath a conductive
gate material;
epitaxially depositing a SiGe layer in at least one area of said
substrate adjacent to the first area of said substrate;
providing a metal layer over said SiGe layer, said metal layer
comprising Ni; and
reacting said metal layer with said SiGe layer to form a region
comprising at least one of silicide or silicide/germanicide disposed
over and in direct contact with unreacted SiGe,
wherein the region comprising at least one of silicide or
silicide/germanicide forms a contact region for a source or a drain of
the FET.

Appeal 2010-004107
Application 10/854,556
3
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 60, 61, 63-65, 70-77, and 79-82 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yoshimi (U.S. 5,698,869;
Dec. 16, 1997). Ans. 3-4.
2. Claim 78 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Yoshimi and Ismail (U.S. 5,534,713; July 9, 1996). Ans. 4-5.

ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
Based on our review, we adopt as our own the findings and reasoning
set forth in the Response to Arguments section of the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 5-7) for the appealed rejections of claims 60, 61, 63-65, and 70-82.
Below we highlight and address specific arguments and findings regarding
these rejections.
The Examiner finds that Yoshimi anticipates independent claim 60,
explaining that Yoshimi teaches the basic method of the invention and citing
as an example the embodiment disclosed in Figure 22 of Yoshimi. Appellant
argues that the structure depicted in Figure 22 does not anticipate claim 60
because it does not describe the SiGe region (237) as being formed by
epitaxial deposit, as claimed, but instead is formed by oxygen ion
implantation. Br. 5-6. In addition, Appellant asserts that Yoshimi’s metal
silicide region (74) is formed by reacting only silicon with a refractory metal
as opposed to reacting a metal layer with a SiGe layer as claimed. Br. 6-7
(citing Yoshimi Figures 24A and 24B).
In response, the Examiner explains that Figure 22 was chosen as an
example of Yoshimi’s teaching primarily because key claimed features were
labeled in a convenient manner, but that the rejection relies on the entirety of
Appeal 2010-004107
Application 10/854,556
4
Yoshimi as anticipating the claimed invention. Ans. 5. Specifically, the
Examiner points to several excerpts from Yoshimi finding that they teach
that the SiGe regions formed adjacent to the gate stack in Figure 22 may also
be formed by epitaxial deposition techniques, as well as by ion implantation.
Ans. 5 (citing Yoshimi col. 7, ll. 56-58; col. 33, ll. 49-50; col. 58, ll. 41-43;
col. 60, ll. 58-59). This explanation is rational. Appellant does not provide
persuasive evidence or argument to rebut this finding. See generally Br. 5-8.
The Examiner also finds that Yoshimi describes reacting a metal layer
with an SiGe layer such that the metal layer is “over said SiGe layer” as
required by claim 60. Ans. 6-7. In particular, the Examiner explains that
Yoshimi teaches that Figure 23 depicts reacting a metal layer not only with
the silicon layer it is in direct contact with, but continues the reaction to the
SiGe layer below the silicon layer. Ans. 7 (citing Yoshimi Figure 23, col. 28,
ll. 7-14; col. 27, ll. 26-28; col. 33, ll. 57-59; col. 21; ll. 26-37). Thus,
according to the Examiner, Yoshimi discloses a metal silicide region (74)
that is formed by reacting a metal layer with a SiGe layer as claimed. Id.
This explanation is rational. Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence
or argument to rebut this finding. See generally Br. 5-8.
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments for the patentability
of claim 60 and found them unpersuasive. Thus, we conclude that Appellant
has not rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of anticipation for
independent claim 60. Appellant relies on the arguments made with respect
to claim 60 for the patentability of dependent claims 61, 63-65, 70-77, and
79-82. App. Br. 5-7. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 61,
63-65, 70-77, and 79-82.

Appeal 2010-004107
Application 10/854,556
5
The Obviousness Rejection
Appellant relies on the arguments made with respect to independent
claim 60 for the separate obviousness rejection over the combination of
Yoshimi and Ismail. App. Br. 7. For the reasons discussed above, we also
sustain the rejection of claim 78.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 60, 61, 63-65, and 70-82 is
affirmed.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk