Ex Parte Nejad et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2013

11614802 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/614,802 12/21/2006 Hasan Nejad MI22-3858 9942
21567 7590 09/16/2013
Wells St. John P.S.
601 West First Avenue
Suite 1300
Spokane, WA 99201-3828
EXAMINER
STARK, JARRETT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/16/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HASAN NEJAD, THOMAS A. FIGURA,
GORDON A. HALLER, RAVI IYER, JOHN MARK MELDRIM, and
JUSTIN HARNISH
____________

Appeal 2011-003760
Application 11/614,802
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
rejection of claims 10-16 and 26-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Micron Technology,
Inc.” Appeal Brief filed August 26, 2010 (“App. Br.”) at 3.
App
App

devi
appl
Figu
parti
linin
parti
layer
brack
eal 2011-0
lication 11
The inve
ce in a mem
ication is r
re 12 abov
ally fabric
g the subs
ally filling
s over the
Represen
ets) is rep
03760
/614,802
ntion relat
ory array
eproduced
e depicts a
ated form,
trate with t
the lower
silicide m
tative cla
roduced b
BACK
es to a me
. Specific
below:
n embodi
including
wo recess
portion of
aterial 56.
im 10 (sho
elow:
2
GROUN
mory devi
ation (“Sp
ment of th
a substrat
es (trenche
the lined
Id. at ¶¶
wing draw
D
ce includi
ec.”) ¶ 9.
e claimed
e 11, a gat
s), silicide
recesses, a
17, 51, 54,
ing refere
ng a reces
Figure 12

memory d
e dielectric
material
nd second
61.
nce numer
sed access
of the
evice in
layer 54
56
insulating
als in

Appeal 2011-003760
Application 11/614,802

3
10. A memory device [10] comprising a recessed access
device in a memory array, comprising:
a recess within semiconductive material of a
semiconductor substrate [11], the semiconductive material
having an elevationally outermost surface;
a transistor gate dielectric layer [54] lining the recess;
a single conductive metal silicide transistor gate material
[56] filling a lower portion of the recess, the metal silicide [56]
having an elevationally outermost surface that is elevationally
inward of the elevationally outermost surface of the
semiconductive material within which the recess is received
leaving a remaining volume in an upper portion of the recess,
the metal silicide comprising at least two metals; and
an insulative material [58] received within the upper
portion of the recess elevationally over and in physical contact
with the metal silicide across the elevationally outermost
surface of the metal silicide and filling the remaining volume of
the recess.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App’x (bracketed material added)).
The Examiner rejected claims 10-16 and 26-36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Williams2 in view of Mo3 and Liu.4
Examiner’s Answer entered November 12, 2010 (“Ans.”) 4-17.

2 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0173844 A1 published
September 9, 2004.
3 Hong-Xiang Mo, Xin-Ping Qu, Jian-Hai Liu, Guo-Ping Ru, and Bing-Zong
Li, Formation and Properties of Ternary Silicide (CoxNi1-x)Si2 Thin Films,
IEEE PROCEEDINGS 5TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOLID-STATE
AND INTEGRATED CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY 271-274 (1998). The
Appellants and the Examiner refer to this document as “Hong-Xiang et al.”
Appeal 2011-003760
Application 11/614,802

4

DISCUSSION
We affirm for the reasons given by the Examiner. Ans. 4-17.
With respect to claim 10, the Appellants acknowledge that Williams
discloses the use of a metal silicide in certain embodiments. App. Br. 10.
They contend, however, that those embodiments described in Williams
“contain at least two materials within the boundary of the dielectric lining
filling the lower portion of the recess.” Id. According to the Appellants,
“Williams fails to disclose or suggest the claim 10 recited single metal
silicide conductive material filling the lower portion of the recess with an
insulative material filling the remaining volume.” Id. Furthermore, the
Appellants argue that Mo and Liu disclose silicidation in the context of a
layer formed over a planar surface, not within a recess as recited in claim 10.
Id. at 11.
We do not find the Appellants’ arguments in support of claim 10
persuasive to show reversible error on the part of the Examiner. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the examiner
had failed to make a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in
framing the issue as one of reversible error because it has long been the

See, e.g., App. Br. 7 and Ans. 5.
4 J. Liu, H.C. Wen, J.P. Lu, and D.L. Kwong, Dual-Work-Function Metal
Gates by Full Silicidation of Poly-Si with Co-Ni Bi-Layers, 26 IEEE
ELECTRON DEVICE LETTERS 228-230, No. 4 (2005).
Appeal 2011-003760
Application 11/614,802

5
Board’s practice to require an appellant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner’s rejections).
While Williams discloses the presence of polysilicon in addition to
embedded metal or silicide in the lower portion of the recess (Fig. 23D;
¶ 134), claim 10 recites the transition term “comprising” to define the
claimed memory device and thus fails to exclude unrecited components such
as Williams’s polysilicon. In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686 (CCPA 1981)
(“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is propylene, any other
monomer may be present, because the term ‘comprises’ permits the
inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”).
The limitation “a single conductive metal silicide transistor gate
material filling a lower portion of the recess” (claim 10) also fails to exclude
Williams’s polysilicon. The term “filling” encompasses both partial and
complete filling and polysilicon is not a metal silicide. Thus, claim 10 reads
on partial filling of the lower portion of the recess by a metal silicide, as is
the case in Williams.
The mere fact that Mo and Liu disclose silicidation in the context of
forming a layer on a planar surface, and not a recess, does not demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s reliance of the teachings found in these references.
Mo and Liu has not been shown to place any limitations on the specific
configuration of the films and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have expected the advantages of using Ni-Co silicide to be applicable
to a wide range of layer configurations including those disclosed in
Appeal 2011-003760
Application 11/614,802

6
Williams. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007)
(“Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill
will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
puzzle.”).
With respect to claim 14, the Appellants argue that the “cited prior art
does not disclose, suggest or in any way enable” the recited width of
“between 25nm and 75nm.” App. Br. 12. Such a skeletal argument,
however, is not an argument in support of the separate patentability of a
claim and, in any event, fails to show reversible error in the Examiner’s
position as stated on pages 7-8 of the Answer. In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
With respect to claim 15, the Appellants contend that “[a]s set forth at
paragraph 0057 of appellant’s specification, the claimed values yield
complete silicidation without leaving voids.” App. Br. 12. But the
statements made in paragraph 57 of the Specification are merely conclusory
because they are not supported by any experimental data. Moreover, the
disclosure in paragraph 57 appears to be limited to a specific mixture of
about 70-90% Ni and about 10-30% Co. Claim 15, however, encompasses
metals other than Co. Therefore, the proffered evidence is not
commensurate in scope with claim 15.
For these reasons, we uphold the Examiner’s rejection.

Appeal 2011-003760
Application 11/614,802

7
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 10-16
and 26-36 as unpatentable over Williams in view of Mo and Liu 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).
AFFIRMED

bar