Ex Parte Pellizzer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2018

14828050 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/828,050 08/17/2015 Fabio Pellizzer
73115 7590 06/25/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/MICRON
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
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.
303.C54US2 8914
EXAMINER
CAO,PHATX
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2817
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FABIO PELLIZZER, MICHELE MAGISTRETTI,
CRISTINA CASELLATO, and MONICA VIGILANTE
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed August 17, 2015 ("Spec."),
the Final Office Action mailed May 9, 2016 ("Final Act."), Appellant's
Appeal Brief filed October 17, 2016 ("Br."), and the Examiner's Answer
dated March 17, 2017 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant is the Applicant, Micron Technology, Inc., which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
The subject matter on appeal relates to phase-change memory cells
and methods of forming a memory cell (see, e.g., claims 1, 8, and 11 ). The
Inventors disclose that conventional embedded SRAM and DRAM have
problems with non-volatility and soft error rates, and embedded FLASH
memories have various issues, such as endurance and reliability problems.
Spec. i-f 2. According to the Inventors, Phase-Change Memory (PCM)
addresses these issues and provides favorable write speeds, small cell sizes,
simpler circuitries, and fabrication compatibility but additional
improvements are needed. Id. In view of this, the Inventors disclose phase-
change memory cells that reduce a required programming current and avoids
difficult processing operations. Id. i-fi-112-13.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A phase-change memory cell, comprising:
a metal plug coupled to a contact of a selector device of
the phase-change memory cell, the metal plug not being a
heater element;
a dielectric layer disposed on the metal plug disposed
above a substrate;
a phase-change material layer disposed on the dielectric
layer; and
a contact region between the phase-change material layer
and the metal plug and disposed within the dielectric layer, the
contact region at least partially comprising material from the
phase-change material layer, the contact region having
approximately vertical sidewalls configured to confine a
programming current, the contact region further having an area
smaller than the surface area of an upper portion of the metal
2
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
plug that contacts the phase-change material layer.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
I. Claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite;
II. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as
being of improper dependent form for failing to further
limit the subject matter of the claim from which it
depends;
III. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sato; 3
IV. Claims 1--4, 6-9, and 11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Asano; 4
V. Claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Happ; 5
VI. Claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Kakoschke; 6
VII. Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Asano;
VIII. Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Asano in view ofKakoschke; and
IX. Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
3 Sato et al., US 2007/0114510 Al, published May 24, 2007 ("Sato").
4 Asano et al., US 2007/0096074 Al, published May 3, 2007 ("Asano").
5 Happ et al., US 2009/0316473 Al, published Dec. 24, 2009 ("Happ").
6 Kakoschke et al., US 2008/0246016 Al, published Oct. 9, 2008
("Kakoschke").
3
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
unpatentable over Kakoschke in view of Asano.
DISCUSSION
Rejection I
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite. Specifically, the Examiner determines the language "the
metal plug not being a heater element" of claim 1 is unclear.
Independent claim 8 includes the same language. Claims 2-7 depend
from claim 1 and claims 9-10 depend from claim 8. Independent claim 11
includes language similar to the language at issue in claim 1.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellant's claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that the Appellant's arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we affirm
the stated indefiniteness rejection for substantially the findings and the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer and the Final
Office Action.
We offer the following for emphasis only. As explained by the
Examiner at pages 2-3 of the Final Office Action and pages 3--4 of the
Examiner's Answer, it is reasonable that a metal plug would function in
some degree as a heater element. Ordinary metals encompassed by the
recited metal plug would possess some degree of resistivity that would cause
the metal to heat when a current is passed through the plug, such as the
current described in paragraph 24 of Appellant's Specification for breaking
down a dielectric layer and the current described in paragraph 27 of
Appellant's Specification for changing the state of the phase-change material
4
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
between an amorphous and crystalline state. Thus, the scope relating to the
negative recitation that the claimed metal plug is not a heater element is
unclear.
For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 as being
indefinite.
The Examiner also rejects claim 11 due to a lack of antecedent basis
and claim 7 as indefinite due to unclear language. Final Act. 3. Appellant
does not present separate arguments for claims 11 and 7. Br. 9-12.
Therefore, we summarily affirm the additional rejections of claim 7 and 11
as being indefinite.
Rejection II
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph, as being
of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of
the claim from which it depends.
Claim 1 recites that the contact region has an area smaller than the
surface area of an upper portion of the metal plug. Claim 6 depends from
claim 1 and recites that the contact region has an area smaller than the
surface area of the top surface of the metal plug. Appellant asserts that the
top surface may be smaller than the overall upper portion of the plug. Br.
12-13. In other words, Appellant argues that the top surface and an upper
portion of a metal plug may be different structures having different surface
areas.
Appellant's arguments are persuasive. The top surface and an upper
portion of a metal plug may encompass different structures having different
5
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
surface areas. As a result, claim 6 further limits the subject matter of claim 1
and we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, fourth paragraph.
Re} ection III
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Sato.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
as set forth in the Examiner's Answer and in the Final rejection from which
this appeal was taken. We offer the following for emphasis only.
First, the structure disclosed by Sato is encompassed by the
limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. Namely, Sato discloses a lower
electrode 11 (i.e., metal plug) coupled to a contact plug 121 (i.e., contact) of
a transistor 103 (i.e., selector device), an interlayer insulation film 12 (i.e.,
dielectric layer) disposed on the lower electrode 11 above an active region
105 (i.e. substrate), a recording layer 13 (i.e., phase-change material layer)
disposed on the interlayer insulation film 12, and an aperture 12a (i.e.,
contact region) between the recording layer 13 and the lower electrode 11,
wherein the aperture 12a at least partially comprises material from the
phase-change material layer, having approximately vertical sidewalls, and
having an area smaller than that of an upper portion of the lower electrode
11, as recited in claims 1 and 11. Sato i-fi-156-57, 62-63, Figure 3.
Appellant's arguments do not identify a structural difference between the
Sato and the recitations of claim 1.
Second, although Sato describes its lower electrode 11 as a heater
plug (Sato i160), Sato also describes its memory device as switching the
6
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
states of the recording layer 13 in substantially similar manner as
Appellant's: by passing current through the lower electrode 11 to the
recording layer 13, which causes the recording layer 34 to heat and make it
amorphous or crystalline. Compare Sato i-fi-171, 79 with Spec. i127. Thus,
we can discern no difference between the lower electrode 11 of Sato and the
metal plug recited in claims 1 and 11.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 11 over Sato.
Rejections IV-VI
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Asano.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Happ.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kakoschke.
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellant's claims and disclosure,
we determine that the Appellant's arguments are insufficient to identify
reversible error in the Examiner's rejections. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated anticipation
rejections for substantially the fact findings set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer and the Final Office Action.
Rejections VII-IX
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
7
Appeal2017-009739
Application 14/828,050
unpatentable over Asano.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Asano in view of Kakoschke.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kakoschke in view of Asano.
Appellant addresses the above§ 103 rejections by referencing
the arguments set forth for the§ 102 rejections and by arguing Asano
fails to remedy the deficiencies asserted for Kakoschke. Br. 18. For
the reasons discussed above and for those set forth in the Examiner's
Answer, Appellant's arguments do not identify a reversible error in
the§ 102 rejections or the§ 103 rejections. Moreover, Appellant's
arguments do not address the§ 103 rejection of claims 1-10 over
Kakoschke and Asano, including the Examiner's findings regarding
Asano or the conclusion of obviousness explaining why it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified
Kakoschke in view of Asano. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejections of claims 1-10.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner 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
8