Ex Parte Furukawa et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

11175582 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte TOSHIHARU FURUKAWA, MARK CHARLES
HAKEY, STEVEN JOHN HOLMES, DAVID VACLAV
HORAK, CHARLES WILLIAM KOBURGER III, and
LARRY ALAN NESBIT
________________

Appeal 2009-011815
Application 11/175,582
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011815
Application 11/175,582

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22.
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention relates to metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS)
device structures with tailored dopant depth profiles (Title). Independent
claim 1 is representative,2 reading as follows:
1. A device structure comprising:
a substrate including an insulating layer and a
semiconductor active layer characterized by a first thickness
overlying the insulating layer;
a gate dielectric overlying the semiconductor active
layer;
a gate electrode characterized by a second thickness in an
overlying relationship with the gate dielectric, the gate
electrode having a sidewall extending toward the active layer;
and
a first depth profile of a dopant species implanted in the
semiconductor active layer and the insulating layer, the first
depth profile having a first projected range greater than the first
thickness, and the first depth profile aligned with the sidewall
of the gate electrode; and
a second depth profile of the dopant species implanted in
the gate electrode, the second depth profile having a second
projected range less than the second thickness.

Claims 1-4, 9-15, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Iwamatsu (U.S. 5,440,161; issued Aug. 8, 1995).

2 Appellants argue claims 1-4, 9-15, and 20-22 together as a group. See
App. Br. 3-9; Reply Br. 4-9. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-011815
Application 11/175,582

3
Claims 5-8 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Iwamatsu.
The Examiner finds that Iwamatsu’s Figure 19, inter alia, indicates
that the boron impurity concentration profile of the field shield MOS
transistor 16 is such that the transistor includes all of the limitations recited
in claim 1 (Ans. 3-5, 7-13). Appellants do not dispute this finding:
The Examiner contends on page 12 of the Answer and
again on page 13 of the Answer that “figure 1 is the final
product; hence, SIMS measurement shown in figure 19 includes
all process conditions, such as ion implantation impurities,
thermal conditions etc. during the fabrication process”. This is
precisely Appellants’ point. In the rejection, the Examiner is
attempting to rely on the boron implantation in Figure 3 of
Iwamatsu. However, the data in Figures 19 and 20 of Iwamatsu
reflect the state of the [final] device as shown in Figure 1; not
the state of the [partially-processed] device as shown in Figure
3 of Iwamatsu. Hence, Figures 19 and 20 (which are
analytically measured with SIMS) are altered by processing
steps, including thermal treatments and an additional boron
implantation at a lower energy, performed after the boron
implantation in Figure 3.
(Reply Br. 9). That is, Appellants solely argue that the dopant profile of
Iwamatsu’s field shield MOS transistor 16 does not anticipate claim 1
because claim 1 requires the dopant profile be produced by a single doping
process (see App. Br. 4-8; Reply Br. 4-9).

ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments present the following issue: Does claim 1
require that the dopant species’ first and second depth profiles be formed
concurrently?

Appeal 2009-011815
Application 11/175,582

4
ANALYSIS
The Anticipation Rejection
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Independent claim 1
recites “[a] device structure comprising . . . .” Claim 1 is therefore directed
to a product – not a process. It is well settled that “[t]he patentability of a
product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 777
F.2d 695, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). That is, claim 1 reads on a
device wherein the dopant species’ first and second depth profiles are
formed either concurrently or sequentially. As noted hereinabove,
Appellants acknowledge that Iwamatsu discloses a device possessing the
claimed impurity depth profiles. Accordingly, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as well as claims 2-4, 9-15,
and 20-22, which were argued together with claim 1.
The Obviousness Rejection
We now turn to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5-8 and
16-19. Appellants contend that “the Examiner fails to find that Iwamatsu
discloses any claimed ranges at all for the items set forth in claims 5-8 and
16-19,” and as such, the Examiner “has failed to support prima facie
obviousness of these rejected claims” (App. Br. 12). This argument is not
persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges that Iwamatsu fails to disclose any
of the claimed ranges (Ans. 6-7). This admitted fact does preclude
Iwamatsu from anticipating the claims, but it does not necessarily preclude
Iwamatsu from rendering the claims obvious.
In further regard to claim 6, Appellants argue that Iwamatsu does not
disclose the rationale upon which the Examiner based the finding of
obviousness (App. Br. 12). This argument is not persuasive. The fact that
Appeal 2009-011815
Application 11/175,582

5
Iwamatsu does not, itself, disclose the stated rationale merely indicates that
the Examiner is taking Official Notice of the stated rationale. Appellants
have not indicated that they have seasonably challenged the Examiner’s
taking of Official Notice (id.).
Appellants further allege in relation to claim 6 that “a person having
ordinary skill in the art would not find a motivation to modify Iwamatsu as
suggested by the Examiner” (id.). However, Appellants do not provide any
reasons to support this conclusory statement (id.).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 5-8 and 16-19.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(v) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc

WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, L.L.P. (IBM)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202