Ex parte Paterson et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 1998

07966615 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 26, 1992. 1
According to appellants, the application is a continuation of
Application 07/707,242, filed May 22, 1991, now abandoned;
which is a continuation of Application 07/526,961, filed May
22, 1990, now abandoned; which is a continuation of
07/128,549, filed
December 3, 1987, now abandoned.
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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAMES L. PATERSON and
GREGORY J. ARMSTRONG
____________
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,6151
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
2
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
3
DECISION ON APPEAL
BACKGROUND
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 21-28, which
constitute all the claims remaining in the application.
Claims 22-28 ultimately depend from claim 21.
The invention pertains to Erasable Programmable Read
Only Memory (EPROM) semiconductor devices and their
fabrication.
Independent claim 21 is reproduced as follows:
21. An array of rows and columns of memory cells
comprising:
a substrate having a first conductivity type;
a plurality of source/drain regions formed in the surface
of said substrate, said source/drain regions having a second
conductivity type opposite said first conductivity type and
said source/drain regions extending at least between two
adjacent rows of memory cells of said array;
a plurality of field insulating regions formed on a
portion of the surfaces of said source/drain regions;
a plurality of slots etched in said field insulating
regions, said slots exposing the surface of said source/drain
regions and extending the length of said source/drain regions
and extending at least between two adjacent rows of memory
cells of said array;
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
4
a first plurality of conductive layers formed directly on
and extending the length of the exposed portion of said
source/drain regions;
a plurality of insulating layers formed on the surface of
said conductive layer; and

a plurality of gates controlling conductivity between
said source/drain regions.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Sugiura et al. (Sugiura) 4,451,904 May 29,
1984
Takasaki et al. (Takasaki) 4,581,622 Apr. 8, 1986
Esquivel et al. (Esquivel) 4,833,514 May 23, 1989
(filed Nov. 18,
1987)
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
reasons relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
5
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in
rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
The rejection of Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, because the specification allegedly does not
provide support for "a second plurality of conductive layers .
. . in electrical contact with said first plurality of
conductive layers" [answer, page 3]. We reverse this
rejection.
Appellants argue the specification teaches that the
embodiment shown in Figure 2G, when combined with the
embodiment shown in Figures 5A-5F, teaches "a second plurality
of conductive layers" [brief, pages 4-5]. The examiner argues
that the specification does not teach the combination argued
by appellants. The examiner does not dispute that the
combination asserted by appellants would teach a "second
plurality of conductive layers."
The specification as filed states, with respect to
Figure 4 which features conductors 16, 17 and 18, that the
resistance of source/drain regions 7, 8 and 9 "may be lower if
a particular conductive region is incorporated as discussed
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
6
below" [specification, page 15, lines 16-20] (emphasis added).
Later, the specification states:
As discussed above, the present
invention additionally contemplates an
embodiment which uses conductive
regions immediately overlying N++
regions 7, 8, and 9. . . . Figures 5A
through 5F illustrate a procedure
which a preferred embodiment utilizes
to form these conductive regions,
which consist of buried silicide
layers [Id. at 17, lines 11-18]
(emphasis added).
Thus, the specification clearly teaches the use of conductors
16, 17 and 18 with the embodiment shown in Figures 5A-5F.
Therefore, the originally filed disclosure supports the
invention of claim 28. Accordingly, we reverse this
rejection of claim 28.
The rejection of Claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Claims 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as the invention. We reverse this
rejection.
The rejection of claims 21-28 under § 112 is based on
the examiner’s misunderstanding of the use of the phrase
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
7
"extending the length" in two places of independent claim 21
from which the remaining claims ultimately depend. Lines 9-10
of claim 21 read in relevant part, "said slots . . . extending
the length of said source/drain regions," and line 12 reads in
relevant part, "a first plurality of conductive layers . . .
extending the length of the exposed portion of said
source/drain regions." The examiner reads these sections as
indicating, respectively, that the slots cause the
source/drain regions to become longer and the conductive
layers cause the exposed portion to become longer. The
correct and sufficiently clear meaning of these quoted
sections is that, respectively, the slots are at least as long
as the source/drain regions, and the conductive layers are at
least as long as the exposed portion of said source/drain
regions. The artisan would have no difficulty understanding
the scope of these claims in view of the specification.
Accordingly, we reverse this rejection of claims 21-28.
The rejection of Claims 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 21-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 21-23 and 25-28 are rejected under § 103 as obvious
over Sugiura in view of Takasaki. Claim 24 is rejected under
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
8
§ 103 as obvious over Sugiura and Takasaki and further in view
of Esquivel. As explained more fully below, it appears to us
that the examiner did not understand certain elements of
independent claim 21. Under the reasoning of In re Steele,
305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962), we are
constrained to reverse the rejection of independent claim 21
under § 103 since the examiner admittedly did not understand
elements of the claim which we determine to be essential to
applying the cited art to claim 21. The examiner’s failure to
properly identify the limitations of claim 21 and the
examiner’s failure to respond to appellants’ arguments
regarding the merits of the prior art rejection force us to
conclude that the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of the obviousness of claim 21. Since we reverse
the rejection as to Claim 21, we reverse the rejection of
claims 22-28 all of which ultimately depend from claim 21.
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Sugiura does not
disclose "a plurality of slots etched in said field insulating
regions, said slots exposing the surface of said source/drain
regions and extending the length of said source/drain regions
and extending at least between two adjacent rows of memory
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
9
cells of said array." The examiner cites generally that
Sugiura teaches the claimed slots and notes elements 39a and
39 of Sugiura.
Sugiura teaches etching a gap in the field insulating
region 34 to form contact holes 39 “which expose the surface
portion of the Si substrate to the outside” [column 9, lines
52-56; Figure 11]. It appears from Figure 11 that Sugiura may
expose some portion of B2 which the examiner asserts is a
source/drain region. Presuming for the moment that Sugiura
teaches "a plurality of slots etched in said field insulating
regions, said slots exposing the surface of said source/drain
regions," it remains unclear whether the contact holes extend
(a) "the length of said source/drain regions," and (b) "at
least between two adjacent rows of memory cells of said array”
as recited in claim 21. Appellants specifically argue these
limitations in the brief, and the examiner fails to respond on
the ground that the claims are indefinite. Specifically, it
appears fairly clear that the examiner did not understand what
was meant by the phrase "extending the length" as is evidenced
by his rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph addressed above. Moreover, the only argument
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
10
offered by the examiner in his answer to appellants’ arguments
that Sugiura does not disclose the claimed slots is as
follows:
Since the nature of the claim language
can not be determined, the rejection
under 35 USC 103 may be properly
applicable to the claims once they are
definite within the meaning of 35 USC
112 [answer, page 7] (emphasis added).
Since it is essential in applying the prior art to
independent claim 21 that one understands the meaning of the
claim language, and since the examiner admittedly did not
understand some of the recitations of claim 21, we are
constrained to hold that the examiner has failed to properly
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
reverse the § 103 rejection of claim 21 and the rejection of
claims 22-28 which ultimately depend from claim 21.
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
11
In summary, we have reversed each of the examiner’s
rejections of the claims. Therefore, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 21-28 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
LP
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
12
STANTON C. BRADEN
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC.
P.O. BOX 655474, M/S 219
DALLAS, TX 75265
Leticia
Appeal No. 94-3910
Application No. 07/966,615
APJ SMITH, JERRY
APJ THOMAS
APJ HAIRSTON

Prepared: July 12, 1999
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT