Ex parte KERI

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 1998

07855490 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 23, 1992. According to appellant,1
this application is a continuation of application no. 07/619,006, filed
November 28, 1990, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 35
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte IMRE KERI
__________
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,4901
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 13 through 15. Claim 3 is objected to
for being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 5 through
10 and 12 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
2
The invention relates to the construction of an integrated
circuit device which prevents a charge build-up on the surface of
the passivating layer and the formation of a parasitic MOS-
transistor by providing a conductor on the passivating layer and
biasing the conductor at a potential different from that of the
substrate.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A high voltage integrated circuit comprising:
a substrate biased at a first potential; and
interconnecting metal conductors biased at a
second potential different from said first
potential disposed on said substrate and partially
covered by a passivating layer so as to prevent
activation of parasitic MOS-transistors.
Independent claim 11 is reproduced as follows:
11. A high voltage integrated circuit comprising:
a semiconductor substrate biased at a first
potential;
a metallization pattern formed on said semi-
conductor substrate and including a plurality of
narrow, elongated metal lines;
a terminal provided external to said high voltage
integrated circuit held at a second potential
different from said first potential and electri-
cally connected to at least one of said elongated
metal lines; and
a passivation layer provided over said
metallization layer and at least partially broken
up along a length of said at least one of said
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
Appellant filed an appeal brief on Feb. 3, 1994 (Paper No. 27). On2
Mar. 9, 1994 the examiner mailed out an examiner’s answer (Paper No. 28). On
Sept. 21, 1995 the examiner withdrew the final office action and entered a new
rejection (Paper No. 29). That rejection was made final (Paper No. 31) and it
is from that rejection which Appellant takes his appeal. We will refer to the
appeal brief filed Aug. 30, 1996 (Paper No. 33) as simply the brief and the
responsive examiner’s answer (Paper No. 34) as the answer.
3
elongated metal lines in such a manner that said
at least one of said elongated metal lines traps
charge carriers.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Agusta 3,611,071 Oct. 05, 1971
Hillenius et al. 4,825,278 Apr. 25, 1989
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 13 through 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hillenius et al
(hereafter, “Hillenius”). Claim 11 stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Agusta.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for 2
the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do not
agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 13 through
15 are anticipated by the applied references.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
4
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant’s claim 1 recites, in part, “a substrate biased at
a first potential; and interconnecting metal conductors biased at
a second potential different from said first potential.”
[Emphasis added.] Independent claim 13 recites “a substrate
biased at a first potential; and . . . a plurality of elongated
interconnecting conductors disposed on said substrate and held at
a second potential.” [Emphasis added.]
In support for his position that the reference anticipates
the claimed biasing of the conductor at a potential different
from that of the substrate, the Examiner relies on Hillenius’
statement (column 3, lines 43 through 46) that “[t]he use of a
bias on the conductive layer 30 that is identical to the
potential of the underlying tub is not essential but the use of
identical potentials will not result in any yield loss due to
occasional shorts through the thin oxide layer 31.” [Answer, page
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
5
4.] The Examiner argues that the statement illustrates that
Hillenius “realizes the expediency of using different
potentials.” [Answer, page 4.]
Appellant argues on pages 4 and 5 of the brief that
Hillenius does not teach the Appellant’s claimed limitations as
required under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In particular, Appellant argues
that Hillenius does not disclose biasing the conductors at a
potential different from that of the substrate. Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s interpretation of Hillenius’ statement, that
the bias of the conductive layer 30 need not be identical to the
potential of the underlying tub, is incorrect. Appellant asserts
that the reference is simply suggesting that the conductive layer
need not be tied, or electrically connected, to the same
potential as the substrate. [Brief, page 5.] In support for his
position, Appellant points to the summary of Hillenius (column 1,
lines 42 through 51) which emphasizes “electrically” coupling the
conductive layer and the substrate and maintaining the two at the
same potential. [Brief, page 4.]
Upon a careful review of Hillenius, we agree with
Appellant’s position that the reference fails to disclose a
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
6
substrate biased at a first potential and metal conductors biased
at a second potential, as recited in Appellant’s claims 1 and 13.
Hillenius discloses (column 1, lines 42 through 51) that “[t]he
conductive layer is electrically coupled to the underlying
semiconductor substrate,” therefore, both are biased at the same
potential. Additionally, Hillenius discloses (column 3, lines 37
through 40), connecting the conductive layer 30 to the same
potential as the [respective] underlying tub region to prevent a
build-up of charges. The reference goes on to describe (column
3, lines 51 through 56) that the conductive layer and the
substrate are electrically connected using contacts 27 and 28.
When read in light of the entire disclosure, Hillenius’ statement
that the bias on the conductive layer 30 need not be “identical”
to the potential of the underlying tub (column 3, lines 44
through 48) merely suggests that the two components need not be
electrically connected to one another when biased at the same
potential. Instead, they may be independently connected to the
same source, rather than different potentials. To find that this
statement suggests biasing the conductor at a potential different
from that of the substrate would be speculative at best.
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
7
Furthermore, we note that claims 2 and 4, are dependent on
claim 1 and claims 14 and 15 are dependent on claim 13, and
thereby recite the above limitation. Therefore, we find that
Hillenius fails to teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 2,
4, and 13 through 15, and thereby the claims are not anticipated
by Hillenius.
Appellant’s claim 11 recites, inter alia, “a metallization
pattern formed on said semiconductor substrate and including a
plurality of narrow, elongated metal lines” and “a passivation
layer provided over said metallization layer and at least
partially broken up along a length of said at least one of said
elongated metal lines in such a manner that said at least one of
said elongated metal lines traps charge carriers.” [Emphasis
added.]
The Examiner relies on the conductors 5, 6, and 7 of Augusta
to teach the claimed metallization layer formed on the semicon-
ductor, and layer 8 is relied upon as disclosing the claimed
passivation layer. (Paper No. 29, page 3). Appellant argues
that electrode 12 disposed on top of layer 8 acts as the
conductor for trapping charges, rather than conductors 5, 6, or
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
8
7. [Brief, page 7.] We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
land 5 (in addition to the electrode 12) acts as a conductor for
trapping charges.
Agusta discloses that electrode 12 acts as a trapping
electrode (column 3, lines 5 through 71). Elements 5, 6, and 7
are disclosed as lands or conductive means of the type
conventionally used in the manufacture of integrated circuits
(column 2, lines 49 through 54). Agusta states (column 2, lines
55 through 71) that lands 5, 6, and 7 are adapted to receive
operating potentials through terminal means 9, 10, and 11 and
that the trapping plate is not restricted to a single level.
Figure 1 shows electrode 12 electrically connected to land 5 via
terminal 9. Accordingly, both electrode 12 and land 5 function
as trapping electrodes.
With respect to the limitation that the passivation layer is
“partially broken up along a length”, Appellant argues that
contact pad 9 cannot reasonably be interpreted as breaking up the
passivation layer 8 along a length. [Brief, page 7.] The
Examiner argues that “Applicant did not specify any critical
length nor did applicant further define partially broken up above
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
9
the passivation layer to be a [sic] slots as appellant did in
claim 2 or as elongated slots in claim 15.” [Answer, page 5.]
We find that the language, given its broadest reasonable
interpretation, provides for a break in the passivation layer
predominately in the length-wise direction of the metal line(s).
Any “break” in the passivation layer necessarily will break up
the layer in both the width-wise and length-wise direction. The
additional language of “along a length” suggests more than a
break of equal dimensions. Terminals 9, 10 and 11, however, are
disclosed (column 3, lines 29 through 31) as formed “via holes
through the encapsulation layer 8" and are shown in Figure 1 as
formed in cylindrical openings in layer 8. Because the
cylindrical openings break up layer 8 equally in the length and
width direction, we find that the passivation layer of Agusta is
not broken up along a length as claimed. Therefore, we find that
Agusta fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 11, and
thereby the claims are not anticipated by Agusta.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 13 through 15 is reversed.
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
10
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-3022
Application 07/855,490
11
Ronald L. Grudziecki
Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis
The George Mason Bldg.
Washington & Prince Streets
P.O. Box 1404
Alexandria, VA 22313-1404