Ex Parte Min et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 28, 2012

11499375 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HONG-KOOK MIN, CHANG-MO PARK, and
SUNG-KYOO PARK
____________________

Appeal 2010-003120
Application No. 11/499,3751
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Appeal 2010-003120
Application 11/499,375

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, and 17.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention concerns a mask Read Only Memory (ROM).
A plurality of doped lines having a second conductivity are arranged at a
substrate having a first conductivity. The mask ROM further includes an
insulation film covering the substrate, a plurality of interconnections
intersecting the doped lines in parallel, and an isolative doped region of the
first conductivity arranged on the doped line of at least one intersecting
place between the interconnections and the doped lines. A first contact plug
penetrates the insulation film at the selected intersecting place, connecting
the isolative doped region to the interconnection. A second contact plug
penetrates the insulation film at a deselected intersecting place, connecting
the doped line to the interconnection. (Spec. 3-4).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A mask Read Only Memory (ROM) comprising:
a plurality of doped lines arranged on a substrate of a first
conductivity, the doped lines having a second conductivity;
an insulation film covering the substrate;
a plurality of interconnections intersecting the doped
lines in parallel and arranged on the insulation film;
an isolative doped region of the first conductivity
arranged at the doped line of at least one intersecting place
selected from intersecting places between the interconnections
and the doped lines;

2 Claims 7, 8, 14, and 16 have been cancelled (App. Br. 15-17).
Appeal 2010-003120
Application 11/499,375

3
a first contact plug penetrating the insulation film at the
selected intersecting place and connecting the isolative doped
region to the interconnection;
a second contact plug penetrating the insulation film at a
deselected intersecting place to directly contact with the doped
line and connecting the doped line to the interconnection, and
wherein the doped line is lower than the isolative doped region
in impurity concentration; and
a plurality of field isolation films defining linear active
regions arranged in parallel with each other in the substrate,
wherein the active regions are isolated from each other
and each of the plurality of doped lines is disposed in a
respective one of each of the active-regions in between and in
direct contact with a pair of the plurality of field isolation films
and wherein a bottom surface of each of the pair of the plurality
of the field isolation films extends below a bottom surface of
each of the doped lines directly contacted thereto.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Chang U.S. 5,891,777 Apr. 6, 1999
Fukuda U.S. 2002/0079526 A1 June 27, 2002
Atsuo J.P. 08-203289 A Aug. 1996
Claims 1-6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Atsuo in view of Chang and Fukuda.
Claims 10-13, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chang in view of Atsuo and Fukuda.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed June 2, 2009) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
September 29, 2009) for their respective details.
Appeal 2010-003120
Application 11/499,375

4
ISSUE
With respect to claims 1-6 and 9, Appellants argue, inter alia, that the
proposed combination of Atsuo, Chang, and Fukuda fails to teach the
claimed invention because Appellants’ Specification contains a definition of
the doped lines as “having a line shape” (App. Br. 9). Appellants contend
that Fukuda, relied upon to teach the doped lines being structured in the
manner claimed, does not teach source/drain regions 24, 26 formed to have a
line shape (App. Br. 11).
With respect to claims 10-13, 15, and 17, Appellants argue that the
proposed combination of Chang, Atsuo, and Fukuda fails to teach the
claimed invention because of Fukuda’s alleged lack of a teaching of doped
lines “having a line shape,” as argued with respect to claims 1-6 and 9.
Appellant’s contentions present us with the following issue:
Does the combination of Atsuo in view of Chang and Fukuda3 teach
or fairly suggest “wherein the active regions are isolated from each other and
each of the plurality of doped lines is disposed in a respective one of each of
the active-regions in between and in direct contact with a pair of the plurality
of field isolation films and wherein a bottom surface of each of the pair of
the plurality of the field isolation films extends below a bottom surface of
each of the doped lines directly contacted thereto,” as recited in claims 1 and
10?
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF.)
Appellants’ Specification
1. Appellants’ Specification discloses that “doped lines 106 are
arranged with impurities of a second conductivity. The doped lines 106 are

3 Or, alternately, the combination of Chang in view of Atsuo and Fukuda.
Appeal 2010-003120
Application 11/499,375

5
configured in the shape of lines, extending along the linear active regions
102. In other words, the doped lines are arranged in parallel and are isolated
from each other on the substrate 100” (Spec. 7,¶ [0033]).
2. Appellants disclose that “[t]he doped lines 106 are formed in linear
form according to the configurations of the active regions” (Spec. 15,
¶[0056]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407, (“While the sequence of these questions might be
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”).
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1-6 AND 9
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-003120
Application 11/499,375

6
Appellants argue that the Specification defines the claimed doped
lines as “having a line shape” (App. Br. 9). Consequently, Appellants argue
that the Examiner erred in combining Atsuo with Chang and Fukuda because
Fukuda does not teach doped lines having a line shape (App. Br. 10).
An inventor may define specific terms used to describe the invention,
but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” and,
if done, must “set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the
patent disclosure so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the
change” in meaning. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Photometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed.
Cir. 1992) (internal quotation mark omitted).
Appellants’ Specification states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he doped
lines 106 are configured in the shape of lines, extending along the linear
active regions 102” (FF 1). “The doped lines 106 are formed in linear form
according to the configurations of the active regions” (FF 2).
We do not regard Appellants’ recitation of “configured in the shape of
lines” as amounting to a definition of the term “line.” Appellants have not
defined the term “line” with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.
See Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Appellants here merely state a configuration
for doped lines 106 in accordance with an exemplary embodiment.
Appellants remain entitled to have the term “line” construed in
accordance with its plain meaning, to wit, “a continuous extent of length,
straight or curved, without breadth or thickness.” To the extent the claim
term “doped lines” requires a line-shaped object, however, we note that
Appellants have not specified any particular length for such a line.
App
App

corre
the c

Fuku
surfa
exten
cont
discl
sour
plain
claim
Chan
same
eal 2010-0
lication 11
The Exa
sponds to
laimed fie
Fukuda’
Figure 1
da.
We agre
ce of each
ds below
acted there
ose any pa
ce/drain di
meaning
We there
s 1-6 and
g and Fuk
Appellan
argument
03120
/499,375
miner find
the doped
ld isolatio
s Figure 1
2D is a sec
e with the
of the pai
a bottom s
to (Ans. 5
rticular di
ffused lay
of the term
fore conc
9 under §
uda. We
ts’ sole ar
presented
s that Fuk
lines, and
n films (A
2 D is repr
tional vie
Examiner
r of the plu
urface of
, Fukuda F
mensions
ers 26 of F
“line.”
lude that th
103 as bei
will not su
CLAIMS 1
gument fo
with resp
7
uda’s sour
device iso
ns. 5).
oduced be
w of the se
’s finding
rality of f
each of the
ig. 12D).
for their do
ukuda con
e Examin
ng unpate
stain the r
0-13, 15, A
r the paten
ect to claim
ce/drain d
lation film
low:
miconduc
that in Fuk
ield isolat
doped lin
Given tha
ped lines
stitute “do
er did not
ntable ove
ejection.
ND 17
tability of
s 1-6 and
iffused lay
12 corres
tor device
uda, the b
ion films (
es (item 2
t Appellan
, we find th
ped lines”
err in reje
r Atsuo in
these clai
9, i.e., th
er 26
ponds to

of
ottom
item 12)
6) directly
ts do not
at the
within th
cting
view of
ms is the
at Fukuda

e
Appeal 2010-003120
Application 11/499,375

8
does not teach doped lines “having a line shape” as allegedly defined in the
Specification.
We find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, for the
same reasons expressed with respect to claims 1-6 and 9, supra. We will
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10-13, 15, and 17.
CONCLUSION
The combination of Atsuo in view of Chang and Fukuda4 teaches
“wherein the active regions are isolated from each other and each of the
plurality of doped lines is disposed in a respective one of each of the active-
regions in between and in direct contact with a pair of the plurality of field
isolation films and wherein a bottom surface of each of the pair of the
plurality of the field isolation films extends below a bottom surface of each
of the doped lines directly contacted thereto,” as recited in claims 1 and 10.
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, and 17 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

llw

4 Or, alternately, the combination of Chang in view of Atsuo and Fukuda.