Ex Parte Moroz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2014

11379548 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte VICTOR MOROZ and DIPANKAR PRAMANIK
__________

Appeal 2011-012992
Application 11/379,548
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
15, 16, 21-25, and 30.1 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellants filed an amendment after the Notice of Appeal was filed
attempting to add claim 37 and make other changes to the claims
(Amendment dated Dec. 15, 2010). The Examiner denied entry of the
amendment on April 15, 2011 as part of the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2).
Therefore, our decision is based upon the claims as rejected by the Examiner
in the Final Office Action.
Appeal 2011-012992
Application 11/379,548

2
We procedurally REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION UNDER § 41.50(b).
Appellants’ invention is directed to an integrated circuit device layout
that allegedly improves performance through stress-engineering relative to a
strained cap layer of the device (Spec. para. [0001]).
Claims 15 and 21 are illustrative:
15. An integrated circuit device layout implementing at least a portion
of an integrated circuit design, the layout defining the following features for
impressing on a substrate:
a P-channel diffusion region; and
a gate conductor crossing the P-channel diffusion region transversely
and designed to terminate beyond a first edge of the P-channel diffusion
region, the portion of the gate conductor extending beyond the first edge of
the P-channel diffusion region designed to make no electrical contact with
any other features of the integrated circuit design, and designed to overly no
other diffusion regions; and
a compressively strained cap material designed to overly at least a
portion of the gate conductor,
the layout further defining an additional feature spaced transversely
from the P-channel diffusion region and in-line with the gate conductor, the
additional feature being a member of the group consisting of (1) an
additional diffusion region forming part of the integrated circuit design,
and (2) an additional feature in the same layer as the gate conductor,
wherein the gate conductor is laid out to terminate at a position that is
short of but otherwise substantially coincident with the additional feature.

21. An integrated circuit device layout, the layout defining the
following features for impressing on a substrate:
an N-channel diffusion region;
a gate conductor crossing the N-channel diffusion region and
extending transversely beyond a first edge of the N-channel diffusion region,
the gate conductor designed to terminate or tum at a first position that is
substantially coincident with the first edge of the N-channel diffusion
region; and
Appeal 2011-012992
Application 11/379,548

3
a tensile strained cap material designed to overly at least a portion of
the gate conductor and designed to extend transversely beyond the first edge
of the N-channel diffusion region.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 21-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
unpatentable over Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
2. Claims 15, 16, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Adams et al. (US 2007/0102755
A1, published May 10, 2007).
3. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over AAPA.

ISSUE
Is the claim phrase “substantially coincident with” in claims 15 and 21
indefinite within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (2013)2? We decide
this issue in the affirmative.

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
We begin our analysis by attempting to construe the claims.
Specifically, we focus on the phrase “substantially coincident with” in
independent claims 15 and 21. Claim 15 recites inter alia that “the gate
conductor [322 or 324] is laid out to terminate at a position that is short of
but otherwise substantially coincident with the additional feature [e.g.,

2 35 U.S.C. § 112 was amended by the American Invents Act (AIA) on
September 16, 2011. The current section of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) corresponds
to prior 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Appeal 2011-012992
Application 11/379,548

4
power supply bus 226]” (Fig. 5). Claim 21 recites, in relevant part, “the gate
conductor [322 or 324] designed to terminate [516 or 518] or turn [520] at a
first position that is substantially coincident with the first edge [512 in the
case of turning or 516 in the case of terminating] of the N-channel diffusion
region [320]” (Fig. 5).
Appellants contend that the phrase “substantially coincident with” is
defined in the Specification (App. Br. 13). Appellants argue that paragraph
45 of the Specification defines “substantially” as “a slight spacing between
the two edges or a slight overlap, both typically due to either a mask
misalignment or a designer’s overcompensation to protect against mask
misalignment” (id. at 13-14). Appellants argue that the Specification
contains extensive discussion about mask misalignment and manufacturing
tolerances (id. at 14). Appellants contend that accuracy of the alignment
stepper used during the fabrication process is the main limitation to placing
an edge of a gate conductor exactly coincident with an edge of a diffusion
region. Id. Appellants state that the standard deviation () is a measure by
which the designer can select a designed spacing in order to reduce the
probability of overlap when the device is actually fabricated, to a desired
(low) probability. Id. The misalignment probability standard deviation ()
of the steppers in the target fabrication process allows the designer to
calculate what spacing to use in the layer in order to achieve that target low
probability of overlap (id.). Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand what is being claimed based upon the definition of
“substantially” in the Specification and the description that mask
misalignment is a reason for the slight spacing (id. at 14-15). Though no §
112 rejection has been made by the Examiner, Appellants contend that the
Appeal 2011-012992
Application 11/379,548

5
claim phase “substantially coincident with” is not indefinite as the
Specification describes the standard required for measuring the degree of
variability in the term “substantially” (App. Br. 15).
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, we note that the paragraph 45 is
not directed to how the term “substantially” is defined with regard to the
gate conductors. Rather, paragraph 45 is directed to how the term
“substantially” should be interpreted with regard to the termination of the
two cap layer materials (i.e., 330 and 332) in Figure 3 (Spec. para. [0045]).
Paragraph 58 which is directed to the extent gate conductors extend past the
diffusion area does not use the phrase “substantially coincident with” to
describe the relationship of the gate conductor termination or turn (i.e., 322
and 324) and the edge of the diffusion area (i.e., 320). Rather, paragraph 58
describes that the gate electrode should extend to “no more than five times”
the standard deviation () beyond the diffusion boundary.
Appellants argue that the disclosed relationship of the standard
deviation to the distance the gate conductors may extend past the diffusion
region informs one of ordinary skill the art of the requisite degree that the
gate conductors are “substantially coincident with” the additional feature
(claim 15) or the first edge of the N-channel diffusion region (claim 21)
(App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 5-9). However, Specification paragraphs 5 and 7,
for example, disclose that the descriptions of the extent the gate electrodes
may extend past the N-channel diffusion region or the P-channel diffusion
region are merely preferences. In other words, the Specification fails to
provide the necessary guidance to inform what degree of coincidence
between the termination of the gate conductor and a first edge of the N-
channel diffusion region (claim 21) or the termination of the gate conductor
Appeal 2011-012992
Application 11/379,548

6
and the additional feature (claim 15) would have been considered
“substantially coincident with” the first edge of the N-channel diffusion
region or the additional feature.
Indeed, Appellants state that the proximity claim language is “set
forth specifically in a way that varies as fabrication processes improve,
stepper standard deviations become smaller, and designers are able to lay out
their gate conductors to terminate closer and closer to the specified feature”
(Reply Br. 9). We understand this statement to indicate that the claim phrase
“substantially coincident with” has a meaning that will change with time.
Appellants’ statement further bolsters our conclusion that the claims are
indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to
determine the degree of variability that would satisfy the claim feature
“substantially coincident with.”
Therefore, we reject claims 15, 16, 21-25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §
112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
In light of our new ground of rejection based upon the indefiniteness
of the claims, we procedurally reverse the § 102 and § 103 rejections as
based upon speculative meaning of the claims. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,
863 (CCPA 1962).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed. We enter a new ground of
rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

Appeal 2011-012992
Application 11/379,548

7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner . . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record . . . .

ORDER
REVERSED & NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER § 41.50(b)

cdc