Ex Parte Herman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2013

11888072 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY HERMAN, BENJAMIN CLARK, and
ZHIZHANG CHEN
___________

Appeal 2011-002210
Application 11/888,072
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002210
Application 11/888,072

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1-20. Appeal Brief 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm-in-part.
Introduction
The invention is directed to microelectronic device having a zinc
indium oxide semiconductor channel and an organic polymer layer formed
thereon. Appeal Brief 2.
Illustrative Claims
1. A microelectronic device, comprising:
a thin film transistor including a zinc indium oxide
semiconductor channel; and
an organic polymer passivation layer formed on said zinc
indium oxide semiconductor channel.

9. A method of making a thin film transistor, comprising:
forming a zinc indium oxide semiconductor channel; and
forming an organic polymer passivation layer on said
zinc indium oxide semiconductor channel.

17. A thin film transistor manufactured by the process
comprising:
forming an oxide semiconductor channel, wherein said
oxide semiconductor channel is formed of a material chosen
from one of zinc oxide, tin oxide, indium oxide, gallium oxide,
zinc indium oxide, zinc tin oxide, indium gallium oxide, zinc
indium gallium oxide, and a mixture thereof; and
forming an organic polymer passivation layer on said
oxide semiconductor channel.

Appeal 2011-002210
Application 11/888,072

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoffman (U.S. Patent
Application Publication Number 2006/0079034 A1; published April 13,
2006) and Burgoyne, Jr. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2005/0240002 A1; published October 27, 2005). Answer 3-9.
Claims 3-5, 11, 14, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hoffman, Burgoyne, Jr., and Takatsuji (U.S.
Patent Application Publication Number 2001/0008710 A1; published July
19, 2001). Answer 9-12.
Issues
Do Hoffman and Burgoyne, Jr., either alone or in combination,
disclose a thin film transistor that includes an organic polymer passivation
layer on a zinc indium oxide semiconductor channel?
Do Hoffman and Burgoyne, Jr., either alone or in combination,
disclose a thin film transistor that includes an organic polymer passivation
layer on:
wherein said oxide semiconductor channel is formed of a
material chosen from one of zinc oxide, tin oxide, indium
oxide, gallium oxide, zinc indium oxide, zinc tin oxide, indium
gallium oxide, zinc indium gallium oxide, and a mixture
thereof; and
forming an organic polymer passivation layer on said
oxide semiconductor channel.
as recited in claim 17.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds:
Appeal 2011-002210
Application 11/888,072

4
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
substitute the organic polymer (poly arylene ether)
passivation layer of Burgoyne, JR. [ ] for the passivation
layer of Hoffman et al to provide low temperature
crosslinking dielectrics, passivations and insulators.
(Burgoyne, JR. et al, ¶ [0002])
Answer 4-5.
Appellants contend:
Neither Hoffman nor Burgoyne, [Jr.,] alone or in
combination, discloses a thin film transistor that includes
an organic polymer passivation layer on a zinc indium
oxide semiconductor channel. In contrast, Hoffman merely
discloses a transistor having a channel formed from one of
a grocery list of materials and a passivation layer,
preferably a wide-bandgap dielectric material. Hoffman
fails to even specifically disclose zinc indium oxide for the
transistor channel. (See MPEP 2144.08), Burgoyne merely
discloses a particular polymer, poly (arylene ether) that
cross-links at low temperatures.
Appeal Brief 6-7.
We find Appellants’ arguments, that neither Hoffman nor Burgoyne,
alone or in combination, discloses the recited thin film transistor (Appeal
Brief 6-7), to be persuasive. We find that neither Hoffman nor Burgoyne,Jr.
has a nexus in which a proper obviousness rejection can be proffered
without improperly relying upon Appellants’ Specification. “It is
impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or
‘template’ to piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed
invention is rendered obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (footnote omitted). Hoffman discloses that the channel layer can be
comprised of one or more semiconductor material including oxide
semiconductor yet fail to disclose the employment of zinc indium oxide as
Appeal 2011-002210
Application 11/888,072

5
recited in independent claims 1 and 9. See Hoffman, paragraph [0012].
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1 and 9, as well as, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 for the reasons
stated above.
However, claim 17 is broader in scope than both claims 1 and 9.
While claims 1 and 9 recite “a zinc indium oxide semiconductor channel”
claim 17 recites a grocery list of oxides that can be employed thus reducing
the criticality of utilizing a specific oxide. Hoffman discloses the
employment of zinc oxide which is one of the first elements in Hoffman’s
list of semiconductor materials. Hoffman, paragraph [0012]. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that it would have been obvious to
modify Hoffman by using an organic passivation layer, as taught by
Burgoyne, Jr., in conjunction with an oxide semiconductor channel. See
Answer 8. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
of independent claim 17, as well as, dependent claims 18-20 for the reasons
stated above.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-16 is reversed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 17-20 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
llw