Ex Parte Surthi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

13216164 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/216,164 08/23/2011 Shyam Surthi
52142 7590 05/26/2016
FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
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.
10-0303(MICS:0331/MAN) 3605
EXAMINER
MENZ, LAURA MARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
manware@fyiplaw.com
s trickland @fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHY AM SUR THI and HUNG-MING TSAI
Appeal2014-009782
Application 13/216, 164
Technology Center 2800
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-11, which are all the claims pending in this application.
Claims 12-26 were withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Micron Technology, Inc. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Aug. 23, 2011 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Jan. 2, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed June 2, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed July 10,
2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 10, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-009782
Application 13/216, 164
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a method for forming connections to a
memory array and periphery. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
simultaneously forming a first stack of conductive
materials on a memory array and a second stack of the
conductive materials on a periphery of the memory array,
wherein the first stack and the second stack are formed with a
stack height differential between the first stack and the second
stack;
removing a portion of the second stack to eliminate the
stack height differential; and
forming a plurality of connections on the memory array
from the conductive materials of the first stack to a plurality of
gates or transistors of the memory array.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on
Acocella (US 5,899,713; May 4, 1999). (Final Act. 2.)3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
on Knoefler (US 2009/0072274 Al; Mar. 19, 2009). (Final Act. 3-5.)
3 The Examiner has withdrawn this§ 102(b) rejection based on Acocella.
(Ans. 2).
2
Appeal2014-009782
Application 13/216, 164
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Knoejler discloses
"simultaneously forming a first stack of conductive materials on a memory
array and a second stack of the conductive materials on a periphery of the
memory array "?
The Examiner finds Knoefler discloses simultaneously forming a first
stack of conductive materials on a memory array (i.e., gate stack 154 over
array 120) and a second stack of the conductive materials on a periphery
(i.e., gate stacks 140 and 154 over periphery 110). (Ans. 4--5, citing
Knoefler i-fi-129-30, Fig. IF). Appellants contend simultaneously forming
two stacks of conductive materials requires the layers of the two stacks are
deposited at the same time and have identical material composition and
thickness, thus Knoefler' s second stack of different materials ( 140 and 154)
discloses sequentially layering materials but not simultaneously forming two
stacks of conductive materials. (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 3---6).
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error. We
agree with the Examiner's finding that claim 1 does not require the first and
second stack of the conductive materials to have identical material
composition and thickness, thus Appellants' arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. (Ans. 4). We further agree with
the Examiner's finding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "a
second stack of the conductive materials" that is consistent with Appellants'
disclosure does not preclude elements within the second stack in addition to
the claimed "conductive materials." (Ans. 4--5; see In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).) Therefore, we agree that Knoefler
discloses simultaneously forming a first stack (154) and a second stack of
3
Appeal2014-009782
Application 13/216, 164
the conductive materials (154, where second stack also includes layer 140).
(Ans. 3-5.)
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Knoejler discloses
"removing a portion of the second stack to eliminate the stack height
differential"?
Appellants contend Knoefler discloses removing the entire second
stack 154 in the periphery region, thus Knoefler does not disclose removing
a portion of the second stack to eliminate a height differential. (App. Br.
10-12; Reply Br. 6-8). We are not persuaded of Examiner error by
Appellants' contention, because as discussed with respect to Issue 1 supra,
we agree with the Examiner's finding that the "second stack" includes both
layers 154 and 140, not merely the layer 154 alone. Further, we agree with
the Examiner's finding that Knoefler's removal of layer 154 in the
periphery, while leaving layer 140 intact, discloses removing a portion of the
second stack (i.e., removing only layer 154 of the 140/154 stack) to
eliminate a height differential between the first stack in memory array and
the second stack in the periphery. (Ans. 6-7, citing Knoefler i-f 44.)
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2-11 (see
App. Br. 12), therefore we sustain their rejection for the reasons stated with
respect to independent claim 1.
4
Appeal2014-009782
Application 13/216, 164
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5