Ex Parte Ranade

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

11523105 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

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.
11/523,105 09/18/2006 Pushkar Ranade 42P24724 5327
45209 7590 12/19/2014
Mission/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
MALSAWMA, LARINFAMKIMA HMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2014 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 PUSHKAR RANADE
____________

Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a semiconductor device. The
Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 48–65 are pending. The pending claims are directed to a
semiconductor device. Claims 48, 50, 54, 56, 60, and 62 are independent
claims. Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 48–
65, which stand rejected as follows:
Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105

2
1. Claims 48, 52, 54, 58–60, 64 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
(pre-AIA) as anticipated by Yeo.1 Answer 4.
2. Claims 49–51, 53, 55–57 and 61–63 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(pre-AIA) as obvious in view of Yeo and Wang.2 Answer 6.
Claim 48 is representative and reads as follows (emphasis added to
highlight the disputed claim limitation):
A semiconductor device comprising:
a substrate;
an active region disposed directly on said substrate and
consisting of germanium or a III-V material, wherein the
composition of said active region is different from the
composition of said substrate;
a gate dielectric layer disposed directly on said active
region, wherein, at the interface of said gate dielectric layer and
said active region, said gate dielectric layer comprises a layer of
oxide of said substrate;
a gate electrode disposed above said gate dielectric layer;
a pair of tip extensions disposed on either side of said
gate electrode and in said active region;
a pair of gate isolation spacers disposed adjacent to the
sidewalls of said gate electrode and above said pair of tip
extensions; and
a pair of source/drain regions disposed on either side of
said pair of gate isolation spacers and entirely within said active
region, said pair of source/drain regions comprising a
semiconductor material different from, and in direct contact
with, the germanium or the III-V material of said active region.

1 Yeo et al., US 2004/0178447 A1, published Sept. 16, 2004.
2 Wang et al., US 7,538,390 B2, issued May 26, 2009.
Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105

3
ANTICIPATION
Claim 48 is directed to a semiconductor device. The semiconductor
device comprises, inter alia, a “pair of source/drain regions comprising a
semiconductor material different from, and in direct contact with, the
germanium or the III-V material of said active region.” The Examiner found
that the semiconductor device of Yeo describes all the features recited in
claim 48. Answer 4–6. For the “source/drain,” the Examiner found Yeo
describes a source/drain “252” with the following features:
a crystalline semiconductor/semiconductive material ([0072]:
nickel silicide - which includes silicon being a crystalline
semiconductor/semiconductive material; and/or dopant
material, i.e. boron, phosphorous, arsenic which are also
crystalline semiconductor/semiconductive materials) different
from, and in direct contact with, the germanium or the III-V
material of said active region (a nickel silicide layer, although
not shown in the figure, would be formed on top of and in
direct contact with the source/drain regions that are formed
within the active region, 210; a dopant material is also in direct
contact with the active region being that it is implanted into the
active region).
Id. at 5.
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that Yeo describes a
source/drain with a different semiconductor material in direct contact with
the active region of the semiconductor region as recited in the claim. Appeal
Br. 15–16. The question in this rejection is whether the Examiner
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Yao’s semiconductor
device comprises the claimed “pair of source/drain regions comprising a
semiconductor material different from, and in direct contact with, the
germanium or the III-V material of said active region.” The underlying
App
App

issue
appe

Disc

and a
cryst
Exam
semi
mate

sour

devi
form
impl
know
eal 2012-0
lication 11
is the bro
ars in claim
ussion
The Exa
doped m
alline sem
iner asser
conductor
rial in dire
Fig. 9d o
ce/drain re
Fig. 9D
ce. 252 is
ation [250
antation, P
n and use
10976
/523,105
adest reaso
48 and i
miner foun
aterial of “
iconducto
ted were i
device. A
ct contact
f Yeo, rep
gions of Y
shows 210
the source
], source a
III, gas or
d in the ar
nable inte
n each of t
d that Ye
boron, pho
r/semicond
n direct co
nswer 5.
with the c
roduced b
eo’s semi
and 216 a
and drain
nd drain r
solid sour
t.” Yeo ¶
4
rpretation
he other in
o’s source/
sphorous
uctive ma
ntact with
We shall f
laimed act
elow, illus
conductor
s the activ
regions. Y
egions 252
ce diffusio
72. In oth
of the term
dependen
drain com
, arsenic w
terials,” b
the active
ocus atten
ive region
trates the
device.
e regions
eo teache
are doped
n, or any
er words,
“differen
t claims.
prises nick
hich are a
oth of whi
region of
tion on the
.
active regi
of the sem
s that “[a]
by ion
other techn
the active
t” as it
el silicide
lso
ch the
Yeo’s
doped
on and
iconducto
fter space
iques
region is

r
r
Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105

5
made into a source/drain by implanting a dopant into it. The Examiner
found “that doping into the source and drain region” would produce a
different material than the undoped active region 216 comprising germanium
or the III-V material. Answer 8. Since the doped region 252 is adjacent and
adjoins the active region 216, the Examiner reasonably found it to be “in
direct contact with, the germanium or the III-V material of said active
region” as recited in the claims. Id.
Appellant contents “that the claimed ‘different’ semiconductor
material (or crystalline semiconductor material or semiconducting material)
is one which is different beyond the mere inclusion of some other species
such as an implanted dopant or the like. (See Appellants' specification, e.g.,
paragraphs 0021 and 0038.).” Appeal Br. 14.
Paragraph 21 of Application 11/523,105 (“the ’105 Application”)
involved in this appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
The pair of source/drain regions 120 may comprises portions of
active region 104 that incorporate charge-carrier dopant
impurity atoms. In one embodiment, active region 104 is a
crystalline silicon/germanium active region of the stoichiometry
SixGe1-x, where O ≤ x ≤ 1, and the charge-carrier dopant
impurity atoms are selected from the group consisting of boron,
arsenic, indium or phosphorus. In another embodiment, active
region 104 is comprised of a III-V material and the charge-
carrier dopant impurity atoms are selected from the group
consisting of carbon, silicon, germanium, oxygen, sulfur,
selenium or tellurium. Alternatively, the pair of source/drain
regions 120 may comprise a semiconductor material that is
different from the semiconductor material of active region 104.
In an embodiment, the lattice-constant of the semiconductor
material of source/drain region is different from the lattice-
constant of the semiconductor material of active region 104
and, thus, the pair of source/drain regions 120 is a pair of
Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105

6
uniaxial strain-inducing source/drain regions. In one
embodiment, active region 104 is comprised of SixGe1-x and the
pair of source/drain regions 120 is comprised of SiyGe1-y where
0 ≤ x, y ≤ 1 and x ≠ y. In another embodiment, active region
104 is comprised of AlxGa1-xAs, InxGa1-xP or AlxIn1-xSb and the
pair of source/drain regions 120 is comprised of AlyGa1-yAs,
InyGa1-yAs, InyGa1-yP or AlyIn1-ySb, respectively, where 0 ≤ x, y
≤ 1 and x ≠ y.

Paragraph 21 states that the active region can be doped to form
source/drain regions, the same teaching in Yeo that the Examiner found to
be anticipatory to the claims. Answer 5 and 8. However, after describing
the doping embodiment, paragraph 21 states “[a]lternatively, the pair of
source/drain regions 120 may comprise a semiconductor material that is
different from the semiconductor material of active region 104.” ’105
Application ¶ 21. Following this sentence, the paragraph describes several
apparent examples of different materials, several which have the same
atomic composition (e.g., SiGe), but which differ only in the stoichiometry
of the atoms. The Examiner found that Appellant’s citation to this paragraph
did not persuasively distinguish the claimed subject matter from Yeo
because “[a]lthough the claims are interpreted in light of the specification,
limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” Answer 9.
During patent prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Although an inventor is indeed free to define the
specific terms used to describe his or her invention, this must be done with
Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105

7
reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. ‘Where an inventor
chooses to be his own lexicographer and to give terms uncommon meanings,
he 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.
See Intellicall, Inc., v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387–88 (Fed.
Cir. 1992).” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (emphasis
added).
In this case, Appellant’s position is that the term “different” in the
phrase “a semiconductor material different from” excludes a material which
differs from another material only by the presence of dopants. However,
this definition is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of “different” as “1:
partly or totally unlike in nature, form, or quality” and “2: not the same: as.”3
Yeo’s source/drain region comprises a dopant in the same material as
the active region. Yeo ¶ 72. Under the ordinary meaning of “different,” the
doped source/drain region is different from the material of the active region
because it contains a dopant while the active region lacks it and therefore,
the source/drain is “unlike” and “not the same as” the active region. The
question is whether the ’105 Application defined the term more narrowly.
Paragraph 21’s statement of alternative embodiments of “a
semiconductor material that is different from the semiconductor material of
active region 104” is insufficient to serve to redefine “different” since
Applicant did not clear set forth a definition of the term nor “demonstrate[ ]
a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of
manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,

3 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/different
Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105

8
358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Paragraph 21 does not with “reasonable
clarity, deliberateness, and precision” redefine “different” to exclude the
dopant embodiment from not being a different semiconductor material than
one that lacks it. Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480. Rather, such exclusion could
only possibly be inferred by reading “[a]lternatively, the pair of source/drain
regions 120 may comprise a semiconductor material that is different from
the semiconductor material of active region 104” to exclude anything that
comes before the sentence as not being different. Instead, the sentence could
just as well be understood as setting forth additionally named materials
which have the same atomic composition in both the source/drain and active
regions, but differ only in stoichiometry (e.g., “In one embodiment, active
region 104 is comprised of SixGe1-x and the pair of source/drain regions 120
is comprised of SiyGe1-y where 0 ≤ x, y ≤ 1 and x ≠ y.”).
Appellant did not direct us to where in paragraph 38 of the ’105
Application “different” is redefined with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness,
and precision.” Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480.
With respect to the other independent claims, the Examiner found that
the source/drain doped region of Yeo is a crystalline semiconductor material
as recited in claims 54 and 56, and a semiconducting material as recited in
claim 60 and 62. Answer 5 and 8. Appellant did not challenge these
findings.
We conclude that a preponderance of the evidence before us supports
the Examiner’s determination that independent claims 48, 50, 54, 56, 60, and
62, and dependent claims 52, 52, 58, 59, 64 and 65, are anticipated by Yeo.

Appeal 2012-010976
Application 11/523,105

9
OBVIOUSNESS
Appellant contends that claims 49–51, 53, 55–57 and 61–63 are
patentable for the same reason that Yeo was deficient in its teachings
regarding independent claims 48, 54, 56, 60. Since we found these
arguments unpersuasive, we affirm the rejection of claims 49–51, 53, 55–57
and 61–63 for the reason set forth by the Examiner. Answer 6–7.

CONCLUSION
The anticipation rejection of claims 48, 52, 54, 58–60, 64 and 65
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-AIA) is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection of claims 49–51, 53, 55–57 and 61–63
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) is affirmed.

TIME PERIOD
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
lp