Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 3, 2016

12975809 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/975,809 12/22/2010
58027 7590 06/07/2016
RC PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dong-Hyun LEE
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P4160USOO 6224
EXAMINER
GORDON,MATTHEWE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/07/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONG-HYUN LEE, KI-YONG LEE, JIN-WOOK SEO,
MIN-JAE JEONG, YONG-DUCK SON, BYUNG-SOO SO,
SEUNG-KYU PARK, KIL-WON LEE, YUN-MO CHUNG,
BYOUNG-KEON PARK, JONG-RYUKPARK, TAK-YOUNG LEE,
and JAE-WAN JUNG
Appeal2014-009442
Application 12/975,809
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, CHRISTOPHER OGDEN, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 10, 12, 14--20, 25, and 27-
29 of Application 12/975,809. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-009442
Application 12/975,809
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of crystallizing an
amorphous silicon layer by super grain silicon (SGS) or metal induced
crystallization as part of a method for manufacturing a thin film transistor
(TFT). App. Br. 4; Specification iii! 2-5.
Claim 10, reproduced below with particular limitations of interest in
italics, is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
10. A method of manufacturing a thin film transistor including
a semiconductor layer having a channel region, a source region
and a drain region, the method comprising:
forming a gate electrode corresponding to the channel region;
forming a gate insulating layer covering the gate electrode;
forming an amorphous silicon layer on the gate insulating layer;
positioning crystallization catalyst particles to be separated
from each other on the amorphous silicon layer;
depositing an insulating layer on the crystallization particles
and the amorphous silicon layer;
selectively removing portions of the insulating layer and
crystallization catalyst particles such that portions of the
insulating layer and crystallization catalyst particles are
removed from the amorphous silicon layer and portions of the
insulating layer and crystallization catalyst particles remain on
the amorphous silicon layer; and
crystallizing the amorphous silicon layer by a heat treatment to
form a crystallization region comprising a first region and
second regions positioned on both sides of the first region,
wherein the first region is crystallized by super grain
silicon (SGS) or metal induced crystallization (MIC), and
second regions are crystallized by metal induced lateral
crystallization (MILC).
2
Appeal2014-009442
Application 12/975,809
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Seo et al. US 2007/0087490 Al Apr. 19, 2007
(hereinafter "Seo")
Yamazaki et al. US 6,997,985 Bl Feb. 14, 2006
(hereinafter "Yamazaki")
Han et al. KO 1020020035909 A May 16, 2002
(hereinafter "Han")
Yeh et al. US 2010/0047975 Al Feb. 25, 2010
(hereinafter "Yeh")
THE REJECTION
Claims 10, 12, 14, 18-20, 25, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Seo, Yamazaki, and Han. Claims 15-17 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Seo, Yamazaki, Han,
and Yeh.
DISCUSSION
Appellants present argument directed only to independent claim 10
and dependent claim 12 and stipulate that all appealed claims except claim
12 stand or fall with claim 10. App. Br. 6. Therefore, we address only
claims 10 and 12.
Claim 10
Appellants argue that the rejection fails to establish a prima facie case
of unpatentability for two reasons: (a) the Examiner's proposed modification
of Seo with Yamazaki would remove control over crystallization of Seo' s
amorphous layer 105, and thus render Seo inoperative for its intended
3
Appeal2014-009442
Application 12/975,809
purpose (App. Br. 7-8); and (b) the Examiner's rationale for combining Seo
and Yamazaki is not persuasive. Id. at 9-10. We have considered each of
Appellants' arguments for patentability. We are not persuaded, however,
that Appellants identify reversible error in the rejection. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Rejection dated
September 19, 2013 (hereinafter "Final Act."), Answer, and below.
Seo discloses a method of fabricating a thin film transistor having a
channel region crystallized by a super grain silicon method. Seo i-f 19. The
crystallized silicon region is prepared by depositing a metal catalyst layer
107 over a capping layer 106 of silicon oxide or silicon nitride, formed on an
amorphous silicon layer 105, and heat treating in order to crystallize the
amorphous silicon layer. Id. i-fi-133-38. Yamazaki discloses a method of
crystallizing an amorphous silicon film in connection with fabricating a thin
film transistor, by sputtering nickel on the amorphous silicon, coating with a
photoresist and etching to form a nickel film pattern, and heat treating in
order to diffuse the nickel into the amorphous silicon to form crystalline
silicon regions. Yamazaki 23:48-24:18, Figs. 20A-E. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Seo by using the arrangement of layers disclosed in
Yamazaki, i.e., an insulating layer over metal catalyst particles that are
deposited on amorphous silicon, because the layering arrangements and
patterning methods of Seo and Yamazaki were known at the time of
invention and used for the same purpose of crystallizing amorphous silicon.
Final Act. 3; Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Seo' s disclosure requires that "in order to
control the crystallization of the amorphous layer 105, capping layer 206
must be formed, metal catalyst layer 207 must be formed on top of capping
4
Appeal2014-009442
Application 12/975,809
layer 206, and heat treatment must be applied to move the metal catalyst
particles 207 a into capping layer 206 and to the border between the capping
layer 206 and the amorphous silicon layer 205." App. Br. 8 (citing Seo
i-f 39). Thus, Appellants argue that modifying the arrangement of layers in
Seo with the arrangement of layers in Yamazaki would "remove the control
over the crystallization provided by capping layer 106" such that "the
combined references [would] no longer disclose or suggest at least
'positioning crystallization catalyst particles to be separated from each other
on the amorphous silicon layer.'" Id.
Appellants' argument is not sufficiently supported by evidence. Id.
Appellants have not pointed to anything in Seo or any other evidence that
would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art that Seo' s amorphous
silicon layer would not achieve the desired crystallization if the metal
catalyst were formed on the amorphous silicon layer rather than diffused
through Seo's capping layer 106. App. Br. 7-10. Although Appellants
point to Seo i1i139 and 53 as teaching that diffusion of the metal catalyst
through a capping layer is required in order to control positioning of the
metal catalyst particles in the amorphous silicon layer (App. Br. 7-8), those
portions of Seo do not say that the desired crystallization of the amorphous
silicon layer would not be achieved without the capping layer between the
amorphous silicon and metal catalyst, nor do they discourage
experimentation with a different arrangement of layers. Further, Appellants'
argument attacks Seo in isolation, but the rejection is based on the
combination of references, and moreover relies on Yamazaki as teaching the
layering arrangement of Appellants' Specification. See In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be
5
Appeal2014-009442
Application 12/975,809
established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references").
Further, Appellants' argument that the Examiner's rationale for
combining Seo and Yamazaki fails to establish obviousness is not persuasive
of reversible error. App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner's finding that Yamazaki
teaches another way of patterning and arranging layers in order to achieve
crystallization of amorphous silicon as disclosed in Seo is reasonable. See In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness") (cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). Appellants' arguments that "the purposes of Seo's
capping layer 206 and Yamazaki's resist film 245 are completely unrelated"
(App. Br. 9) and that "the Examiner describes Yamazaki's resist pattern 245
and Seo's capping layer 206 as corresponding insulating layers" (Reply Br.
4) are based on mischaracterization of the Examiner's findings. The
Examiner correctly finds that the layer arrangements and patterning methods
of Seo and Yamazaki have a common purpose of crystallizing amorphous
silicon, which is the same purpose as Appellants' Specification; the
Examiner does not base the rejection on modification of the insulating layers
themselves.
Claim 12
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 and recites an additional step of
"removing an uncrystallized region after the crystallizing of the amorphous
silicon layer." App. Br. 14 (Claims App). Appellants concede that
Yamazaki discloses forming the crystallized amorphous silicon into an
island shape to make a TFT (App. Br. 11, citing Yamazaki 26:24--26), but
argue that Yamazaki "fails to describe how such shape is achieved." Id.
6
Appeal2014-009442
Application 12/975,809
Appellants further argue that Yamazaki does not teach removing an
uncrystallized region (Reply Br. 5, citing Yamazaki 9:13-16, Fig. 6) because
"there is no uncrystallized region in Yamazaki to be removed." Id.
Appellants' argument lacks persuasive merit. The Examiner correctly finds
that Yamazaki describes patterning of islands in the crystallized region to
form a thin film transistor, which implies that uncrystallized regions are
removed. Ans. 5, citing Yamazaki 9:45--48. Therefore, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 12.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 10, 12, 14--20, 25, and 27-29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7