Ex Parte YAMAZAKI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 28, 2010

08994038 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI and SATOSHI TERAMOTO
____________

Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304 or for filing a request for rehearing as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 16-26. Claims 1, 3-5, and 13 have been canceled
and claims 7-10 and 15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Attendance at the requested oral hearing for this appeal was waived. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a charge transfer semiconductor
device comprising charge accumulating means in which charge transfer
means transfer the charges accumulated in the charge accumulating means
(Spec. 3:2-7). According to Appellants, the charge transfer device includes
a crystalline silicon film having rod-like or columnar crystal bodies
extending in a particular direction that coincide or approximately coincide
with a charge transfer direction of the charge transfer means (Spec. 3:7-9).
Claim 2 is representative of the claims on appeal and reads as follows:
2. A semiconductor device comprising:
a plurality of photodiodes being formed in a matrix on an
insulating surface;
a plurality of vertical charge coupled devices on the insulating
surface, said vertical charge coupled devices being connected with the
plurality of photodiodes;
at least a horizontal charge coupled device on the insulating
surface, said horizontal charge coupled device being connected with
the vertical charge coupled devices,
wherein at least one of the vertical and horizontal charge
coupled devices comprises a crystalline semiconductor film having a
plurality of crystals extending in a crystal growth direction,
Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038

3
wherein a crystal structure of the crystalline semiconductor film
in the crystal growth direction is continuous so that a charge moving
is not restricted by a grain boundary,
wherein at least one of the vertical and horizontal charge
coupled devices that has the crystalline semiconductor film is
arranged such that a charge transfer direction of the at least one of the
vertical and horizontal charge coupled devices is coincident with the
crystal growth direction.

Claims 2, 6, 11-14, and 16-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Inoue (U.S. Patent No. 5,873,003, issued Feb. 16,
1999) in view of Okada (U.S. Patent No. 5,582,640, issued Dec. 10, 1996).
We make reference to the Briefs (Appeal Brief filed July 16, 2007,
and supplemented December 17, 2007, and Reply Brief filed March 23,
2009) and the Answer (mailed January 22, 2009) for Appellants’ and the
Examiner’s arguments.

ISSUE
The Examiner relies on Inoue for disclosing all the elements of claim
2 except for the feature “wherein at least one of the vertical and horizontal
charge coupled devices that has the crystalline semiconductor film is
arranged such that a charge transfer direction of the at least one of the
vertical and horizontal charge coupled devices is coincident with the crystal
growth direction,” for which the Examiner relies on Okada (Ans. 4-5).
Appellants contend (App. Br. 6-7) that Inoue does not disclose or
suggest a (vertical or horizontal) charge coupled device (CCD) that
“comprises a crystalline semiconductor film having a plurality of crystals
extending in a crystal growth direction.” Appellants further argue (App. Br.
Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038

4
7-8) that the discussion of the film 1753 in Inoue, which is characterized by
the Examiner as the claimed crystalline semiconductor film having a
plurality of crystals, provides no reference to a crystal growth direction.
With respect to Okada, Appellants assert (App. Br. 8-9) that the reference
provides no teachings pertinent to the recited CCD, or how the crystal
growth of Okada relates to the claimed CCD and the charge transfer
direction.
Therefore, the arguments made by Appellants present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
combining Inoue and Okada to specifically teach the claimed “wherein at
least one of the vertical and horizontal charge coupled devices that has the
crystalline semiconductor film is arranged such that a charge transfer
direction of the at least one of the vertical and horizontal charge coupled
devices is coincident with the crystal growth direction?”

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal.
Inoue
1. Inoue relates to forming thin film transistors (TFT) used in
display devices and CCDs. (Col. 1, ll. 13-22.)
2. Inoue describes manufacturing methods for a TFT, as shown in
Figure 48, wherein the TFT structure is composed of a channel formed of
polysilicon, single crystal in which polysilicon is recrystallized, or
amorphous silicon. (Col. 26, l. 64 – col. 27, l. 13.)
Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038

5
3. As shown in Figure 50, Inoue describes the cross section of a
photoelectric converter composed of a CCD.

Okada
4. Figure 84(d) of Okada is reproduced below:

Figure 84(d) of Okada shows the grains of the polycrystalline silicon
905 formed by using granular single crystalline silicon 904 as the “seed.”
See col. 61, ll. 35-39.
5. Figure 84(g) of Okada is reproduced below:

Figure 84(g) of Okada shows source and drain regions in the island
formed by etching the polycrystalline film 905. See col. 62, ll. 15-22.
6. Okada discloses that the device characteristics become more
stable when grain boundaries are present in the channel region. (Col. 62, ll.
34-47.)

Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038

6
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).

ANALYSIS
We do not agree with the Examiner’s assertion (Ans. 9) that Inoue’s
polycrystalline silicon layer meets the claimed subject matter because all
polycrystalline materials grow in a vertical and a horizontal direction and
because Appellants have not disclosed why charges moving along the grain
boundary of the crystal are different from the prior art. The Examiner’s
position disregards the requirements of the claims specifying a particular
alignment of the crystalline grains such that the movement of charges in not
restricted by a grain boundary. See claim 2. We further find that the
Examiner’s discussion (Ans. 10) that the claimed limitations are obvious
features of any semiconductor material also misses the point. In that regard,
while charges may move in directions that happen to be in the crystal growth
direction for a fraction of the distance they cover, claim 2 requires that at
least one of the vertical and horizontal CCDs has crystalline structure where
Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038

7
the crystal growth direction coincides with the charge transfer direction of
the device.
As argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 2), the crystal growth direction is
significant in determining whether Inoue and Okada disclose the claimed
limitation. Specifically, Appellants assert (id.) that, as shown in Figures
84(a)-84(g) of Okada, the crystalline semiconductor film 905 has a vertical
crystal growth direction, whereas the charges move across the transistor
channel in a horizontal direction. We agree with Appellants and find that
Okada does not require the crystal growth direction to coincide with the
charge transfer direction (FF 4-5). In fact, Okada invites the presence of
grain boundaries in the channel region in order to stabilize the device
characteristics (FF 6).
Therefore, because the disclosure of Inoue is limited to formation of a
TFT used in CCDs wherein the TFT structure is composed of polycrystalline
silicon (FF 1-3), and the crystalline growth direction of Okada does not
coincide with the charge transfer direction, we agree with Appellants’
position that the combination of Inoue and Okada does not render obvious
the subject matter of claim 2, nor of claims 6, 11, 12, 14, and 16-26, which
either include similar limitations or are dependent thereon.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we find
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by
combining Inoue and Okada to specifically teach the claimed “wherein at
least one of the vertical and horizontal charge coupled devices that has the
crystalline semiconductor film is arranged such that a charge transfer
Appeal 2009-011881
Application 08/994,038

8
direction of the at least one of the vertical and horizontal charge coupled
devices is coincident with the crystal growth direction.” Therefore, the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 16-26 over Inoue
and Okada cannot be sustained.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 2, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 16-
26 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022