13735424 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2018)

Ex Parte YAMAZAKI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 12, 2018

13735424 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/735,424 01/07/2013 31780 7590 10/16/2018 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C. 3975 Fair Ridge Drive Suite 20 North Fairfax, VA 22033 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shunpei YAMAZAKI 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. 0756-10033 2758 EXAMINER GRAY, AARON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2897 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/16/2018 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): ptomail@riplo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI, DAISUKE MATSUBAYASHI, and YUTAKA OKAZAKI (Applicant: Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.) Appeal2017-000156 Application 13/735,424 Technology Center 2800 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). Oral arguments were heard on September 27, 2018. A transcript of the hearing will be added to the record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2017-000156 Application 13/735,424 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to a semiconductor device. Spec. ,r 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant limitation in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A semiconductor device comprising: an oxide semiconductor film including a channel region; a gate electrode overlapping the oxide semiconductor film; and a gate insulating film between the gate electrode and the oxide semiconductor film, wherein the oxide semiconductor film includes a bottom surface in contact with an insulating surface, a top surface opposing to the bottom surface, a first side surface between the bottom surface and the top surface, and a second side surface between the bottom surface and the top surface and opposing to the first side surface, wherein an edge of the gate electrode is aligned with an edge of the gate insulating film, wherein the first side surface of the oxide semiconductor film overlaps the gate electrode, wherein the oxide semiconductor film comprises a region where a spin density at a g value of around 1.93 in ESR measurement is lower than 5xl016 spins/cm3, wherein a channel length is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than 60 nm, and a channel width is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than 200 nm, and wherein a distance between the bottom surface and the top surface is 1 to 5 times as large as the channel width. 2 Appeal2017-000156 Application 13/735,424 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 7-15, 19, and 23-28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamazaki et al. (US 2011/0182110 Al; published July 28, 2011) ("Yamazaki"), Yamazaki (US 2011/0127523 Al; published June 2, 2011) ("Yamazaki '523"), and Yamazaki et al. (US 2011/0147738 Al; published June 23, 2011) ("Yamazaki '738"). Claims 4---6 and 16-18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamazaki, Yamazaki '523, Yamazaki '728, and Shih et al. (US 2010/0301340 Al; published Dec. 2, 2010) ("Shih"). Claims 20-22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Yamazaki, Yamazaki '523, Yamazaki '728, and Chen et al. (US 2006/0199305 Al; published Sept. 7, 2006) ("Chen"). ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Yamazaki teaches or suggests "wherein a distance between the bottom surface and the top surface is 1 to 5 times as large as the channel width," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 13? Appellants argue "Yamazaki does not appear to suggest any relationship between the channel width and the distance between the bottom surface and top surface of the alleged oxide semiconductor film." App. Br. 7-8. According to Appellants, "the overwhelming majority of permutations of points within the two asserted ranges would not satisfy the claimed 3 Appeal2017-000156 Application 13/735,424 relationship." App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue "[t]he obviousness of ranges theory set forth in the Official Action, at best, only alleges the obviousness of ranges of individual dimensions, not a relationship between any asserted dimensions," but "there is no suggestion in the stated conditions of Yamazaki ... that the distance should have been 1 to 5 times as large as the channel width." App. Br. 9. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F .2d 454, 456 (CCP A 1955). "A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This overlap creates a presumption of obviousness. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 737-738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). As compared to the Appellants' claims, Yamazaki teaches the following: Channel Length Channel Width Thickness=(x Channel Width) Claims 1, 13 5nm---60 nm 5nm-100nm Ratio 1-5 Yamazaki 1 Onm--400nm 1 Onm--400nm 3nm-30nm=(l-3 x 10nm) See Yamazaki ,r,r 114, 122. The teachings in Yamazaki, therefore, overlap with the claimed ranges, and the Examiner has established a presumption of obviousness. The presumption of obviousness may be rebutted in several ways, including by showing a change to a parameter was not recognized as "result- effective." In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 4 Appeal2017-000156 Application 13/735,424 2012) (citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). But "[a] recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective." Id. at 1297. The presumption may also be rebutted by showing the modification "produce[ s] a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art." Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. A claimed range that demonstrates such unexpected results is referred to as a "critical" range, and the patentee has the burden of proving criticality. Id. Appellants argue the Examiner "has failed to sufficiently show that one of skill in the art at the time of the present invention would have recognized that the relationship between the oxide semiconductor film thickness and the channel width is a variable which achieves a recognized result." App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2, 4. Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it is Appellants who have the burden to show the relationship was not recognized as "result-effective." Appellants also argue the Examiner disregards the criticality of the claimed relationship, citing to various portions of the Specification. App. Br. 10-11 (citing Spec. ,r,r 16, 61, 72, 306, 324); see also Reply Br. 5---6. Paragraphs 16, 61, and 72 of the Specification do not explicitly discuss the claimed relationship. Paragraph 304 merely teaches the claimed relationship, stating, in part, "the oxide semiconductor film 406 which is provided over the base insulating film 402 and whose thickness is 1 to 5 times as large as the channel width." Paragraph 324 states "since the thickness of the oxide semiconductor film 406 is 1 to 5 times as large as the channel width, the transistor can have excellent on-state characteristics even when miniaturized." Appellants have not provided sufficient persuasive 5 Appeal2017-000156 Application 13/735,424 argument or evidence that the described "excellent on-state characteristics" of the transistor are a new and unexpected result or were outside the capabilities of one of skill in the art. Nor have Appellants provided argument or evidence that the 1 to 5 range is critical. Accordingly, Appellants have not rebutted the presumption of obviousness established by the Examiner. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), so we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1 and 13. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-12 and 14--28, which were not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-28 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6