Ex Parte Shin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

11042111 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 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.
11/042,111 01/26/2005 Sang-min Shin 2557SI-001265/US 7561
30593 7590 05/01/2013
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
KARIMY, TIMOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2013 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 SANG-MIN SHIN, JUNE-MO KOO, SUK-PIL KIM, and
CHOONG-RAE CHO

____________

Appeal 2010-006884
Application 11/042,111
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006884
Application 11/042,111

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, 26, and 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a capacitor which
includes a lower electrode having a single layer selected from the group
including a noble metal alloy and an oxide thereof. Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A capacitor, comprising:
a lower electrode, wherein the lower electrode is a single layer
including a noble metal alloy or an oxide of a noble metal alloy;
a dielectric film on the lower electrode;
an upper electrode on the dielectric film, the dielectric film being
between the lower and upper electrodes; and
a noble metal barrier layer directly under the lower electrode, the
lower electrode being between the noble metal barrier layer and the
dielectric film, and the noble metal barrier layer consisting essentially of a
noble metal.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 15, 16, 26, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi
(US 6,337,238 B1; issued Jan. 8, 2002) and Chiang (US 5,700,739;
issued Dec. 23, 1997). Ans. 3-7.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2010-006884
Application 11/042,111

3
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakabayashi and Chiang and
further in view of Tani (US 6,600,185 B1; issued Jul. 29, 2003).
Ans. 8.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
1. the Nakabayashi and Chiang combination teach a lower electrode
which is a “single layer ” as recited in claim 1;
2. there is adequate motivation to modify Nakabayashi in view of
Chiang.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that in Nakabayashi the lower electrode is a multi-
layered structure including a Pt-Ir alloy and an IrO2 film (App. Br. 7).
Appellants also argue that Nakabayashi refers to a PZT/Pt-Ir system, which
would signify that a PZT film 26 would be formed on multiple layers (i.e.,
system), rather than on a single layer (App. Br. 7). Appellants further argue
that a lower electrode 25 in Nakabayashi’s second embodiment does not
consist of a single layer, but rather a Pt-Ir/TiN/Ti layered structure (App. Br.
7-8).
Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to modify
Nakabayashi in view of Chiang because Nakabayashi teaches the lower
electrode 25 including the Pt-Ir alloy layer, which functions as a barrier for
O and Pb atoms (App. Br. 8-9). According to Appellants, there is no need
for Chiang’s noble barrier layer directly under the electrode (App. Br. 7-8).
We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the
Examiner that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Pt-Ir alloy
layer could be interpreted as the lower electrode and the TiN/Ti layer could
Appeal 2010-006884
Application 11/042,111

4
be interpreted as the barrier layer (Ans. 10). We further agree with the
Examiner that Nakabayashi calls the Pt-Ir alloy layer and TiN/Ti layer a
“system” is not relevant because the Pt-Ir alloy layer is construed as the
lower electrode and the TiN/Ti layer provides a diffusion barrier to the lower
electrode which can be characterized as a system (Ans. 10).
We also agree with the Examiner that because Ti is not a noble metal,
the secondary references of Chiang and Tani were used to list that noble
metal (Ir) barrier layers and refractory metal (Ti, Ta) barrier layers as
obvious variants of one another, and their usage in barrier layers as
knowledge readily available to one possessing ordinary level of skill in the
art (Ans. 10). Furthermore, there is motivation to combine the references
because while the Pt-Ir alloy layer (i.e., the lower electrode) also provides
diffusion barrier advantages, that in itself does not preclude the need for a
stronger diffusion barrier (Ans. 12).
As such, the TiN/Ti layer disposed under the lower electrode provides
an additional diffusion barrier against unwanted ion diffusions (Ans. 12).
The Examiner emphasizes, and we agree, that the use of refractory (e.g., Ti,
Ta) and noble metal (e.g., Ir) barrier layers is widely known in the art, and
both Chiang and Tani teach their usage in metallization structures (Chiang’s
column 1, lines 33-46 and 60-65 and Tani’s Figs. 28-30, column 5, lines 5-
40) (Ans. 13). Thus, one skilled in the art at the time of the invention would
have been motivated to substitute the TiN/Ti layer with the noble metal Ir as
an alternative variant for serving as a barrier layer.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 3-12, 14-16, 26, and 27.

Appeal 2010-006884
Application 11/042,111

5
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that:
1. the Nakabayashi and Chiang combination teach a lower electrode
which is a “single layer ” as recited in claim 1;
2. there is adequate motivation to modify Nakabayashi in view of
Chiang.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-12, 14-16, 26, and 27 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

rwk