Ex Parte Seo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2013

11267576 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/267,576 11/07/2005 INV001Sun-Ae Seo 2557SI-000358/US 8906
30593 7590 03/20/2013
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
PHAM, LONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2013 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 SUN-AE SEO, IN-KYEONG YOO,
YOON-DONG PARK, and MYOUNG-JAE LEE
____________________

Appeal 2010-010719
Application 11/267,576
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010719
Application 11/267,576

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4 and 6-9 (App. Br. 4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a nonvolatile memory
device using a resistor having multiple resistance states (Spec. ¶ [0002]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A nonvolatile semiconductor memory device comprising:

a switching device; and

a resistive layer electrically connected to the switching
device and having one reset resistance state and at least two or
more set resistance states, wherein the resistive layer includes at
least one material selected from NiO, TiO2, HfO, Nb2O5, ZnO,
ZrO2, WO3, and CoO.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chu (US 7,136,299 B2) and
Yeh (US Pat. App. Pub. No.: 2005/0190601 A1).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Chu cannot be combined with Yeh because an
ordinarily skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify Chu to “have a
progressive/gradual change in resistance” as taught by Yeh (Br. 15). That is,
Appeal 2010-010719
Application 11/267,576

3
Appellants contend Yeh’s oxide would not allow Chu’s phase change
switching, which involves an abrupt change in resistance (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Appellants have provided no
evidence why the combination of Yeh and Chu would not yield predictable
results, particularly in light of Appellants’ Specification. Paragraph [0035]
states “the resistive layer 12 may be made of at least one material selected
from the group consisting of NiO, TiO2, HfO, Nb2O5, ZnO, ZrO2, WO3,
CoO, GST (Ge2Sb2Te5), and PCMO (PrxCa1-xMnO3)” and paragraphs
[0039]-[0042] state “the resistive layers 12, 32 may include chalcogenide
alloys such as germanium-antimony-tellurium (Ge-Sb-Te)” (¶ [0040]).
Appellants broadly claimed product only requires a switching device without
more, and a resistive layer having a reset resistance state and at least two set
resistance states, the resistive layer including an oxide material. Both
references disclose a semiconductor switch and a resistive layer. Yeh
discloses the resistance layer is an oxide; whereas Chu discloses the
resistance layer is chalcogenide. Further, Appellants’ claim 6 recites the
resistance layer (formed of a transition metal oxide) is formed of
chalcogenide material, contradicting Appellants’ contentions that a
chalcogenide material cannot be replaced with an oxide material thus there is
no motivation to modify the cited art (Br. 10) and the Examiner is using
impermissible hindsight (Br. 15).
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s underlying factual
findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9 over the combination of Chu
and Yeh.
Appeal 2010-010719
Application 11/267,576

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh