11873265 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

Ex Parte Yang

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 23, 2015

11873265 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2015)

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. 11/873,265 10/16/2007 Chin-Cheng Yang JCLA24556 1322 23900 7590 03/23/2015 J C PATENTS 4 VENTURE, SUITE 250 IRVINE, CA 92618 EXAMINER BERNSTEIN, ALLISON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2824 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2015 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 CHIN-CHENG YANG __________ Appeal 2013-003521 Application 11/873,265 Technology Center 2800 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sogawa 1 in view of Baker. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated September 19, 2012 (“App. Br.”). 1. An alignment mark in an alignment region of a wafer, comprising: 1 US 2007/0023932 A1, published February 1, 2007. 2 US 6,274,940 B1, issued August 14, 2001. Appeal 2013-003521 Application 11/873,265 2 a plurality of sub-marks embedded in a material layer, wherein each of the sub-marks has a rectangular shape, and each of the sub- marks comprises : a first element embedded in the material layer, wherein a material of the first element is different from a material of the material layer, and the first element extends linearly; and a plurality of second elements embedded in the first element, wherein the second elements are only arranged in a row in an extending direction of the first element, wherein the first element and the plurality of second elements co-exist on the wafer, the first element surrounds the second elements, and a top surface of the first element, a top surface of each of the second elements and a top surface of the material layer substantially have the same height. App. Br. 6. B. DISCUSSION Referring to Sogawa Figures 1A and 1B, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that Sogawa discloses an alignment mark in an alignment region 3 of a wafer comprising a plurality of submarks 6 embedded in a material layer. The Examiner finds that each of the submarks 6 comprises first element 6, 10 4 which extends linearly and a plurality of second elements 12 embedded in the first element. The Examiner finds that second elements 12 are only arranged in a row in an extending direction of the first element and the first element surrounds the second elements. Final 2–3. 5 3 The alignment region of the wafer is the region of the wafer where blank areas or submarks 6, depicted in Sogawa Figure 1A, are located. 4 Sogawa discloses that scribe area 10 is formed in each area where blank area 6 crosses scribe lines 8. Sogawa ¶ 26. Thus, we understand the Examiner to find that the first element corresponds to scribe lines 8 and scribe area 10 within the area bounded by the dot-dashed line in Sogawa Figure 1B from which the lead line of reference numeral 6 extends. 5 Final Office Action dated April 26, 2012. Appeal 2013-003521 Application 11/873,265 3 Referring to the embodiment depicted in Sogawa Figure 3C, the Appellant argues: Multiple alignment marks 12 are formed in the blank area 6. The alignment marks 12 include a first element 11 and a second element 13. Thus, the blank area 6 of Sogawa should be compared to the alignment region of the application, and the alignment mark 12 of Sogawa should be compared to the sub-mark of the application. App. Br. 3–4. The Examiner correctly explains: [T]here is no language recited in the claim that precludes region 6 of Sogawa from being interpreted as the claimed sub-mark and region 12 from being interpreted as the claimed second elements. Interpretation of the claimed elements is not restricted to the nomenclature in the applied reference. . . . In fig. 1B of Sogawa, the group of four “alignment marks” 12 in blank area 6 can . . . , collectively, be considered an alignment mark. As can be seen from fig. 1B of Sogawa, first element 6 extends linearly and second elements 12 are arranged only in a row in an extending direction of first element 6, as claimed. [6] . . . Interpreting region 6 in fig. 1A as the claimed sub- mark and regions 12 in fig. 1B as the claimed second elements is no different than Appellant’s alignment mark 204 in fig. 2A . . . including a plurality sub-marks 204a, each of which includes a plurality of second elements 208. Ans. 2–3. 7 In response, the Appellant argues that scribe line 8, which forms part of area 6, forms a gap around adjacent elements 12 and is used to separate device chip areas 4 from one another. Thus, the Appellant argues that area 6 and scribe line 8 6 Sogawa discloses that element 12 may be formed of a single metal film rather than metal film patterns 11 as depicted in Sogawa Figs. 3A–3C. Sogawa ¶ 43. 7 Examiner’s Answer dated November 20, 2012. Appeal 2013-003521 Application 11/873,265 4 “are just space.” Reply Br. 1. In contrast, the Appellant argues that “the claimed sub-mark of the application is an actual tangible element.” Reply Br. 1. 8 Significantly, the Appellant has not directed us to any evidence establishing that scribe line 8 is “just space.” We recognize that Sogawa does not expressly disclose the height of scribe line 8 relative to the top surface of either the second elements or the material layer. See Final 3 (finding that “Sogawa does not disclose expressly wherein a top surface of the first element, [9] a top surface of each of the second elements and a top surface of the material layer substantially have the same height.”). Nonetheless, the Examiner concludes: [I]t would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the alignment mark of Sogawa with an alignment mark wherein top surfaces of the first element, second elements and the material layer [are] substantially the same height in view of the teachings of Baker[,] for the purpose of minimizing the effects of dishing and prevent flaws or discontinuities in overlying layers (column 1[,] line 66-column 2[,] line 40 of Baker). Final 3. The Appellant has failed to direct us to any error in the Examiner’s conclusion or underlying factual findings. 10 8 Reply Brief dated January 8, 2013. 9 As explained above, the grid pattern formed by scribe lines 8 and scribe area 10 in the area bounded by the dot-dashed line in Sogawa Figure 1B corresponds to the first element recited in claim 1. 10 For the first time on appeal, the Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that “Sogawa in view of Baker fails to at least disclose the feature, ‘a top surface of the first element, a top surface of each of the second elements and a top surface of the material layer substantially have the same height’ of claim 1.” Reply Br. 2; compare App. Br. 4 (arguing that “Sogawa, even combined with Baker, fails to include the features, ‘each of the sub-marks has a rectangular shape’, ‘the first element extends linearly’, and ‘the second elements are only arranged in a row in an extending direction of the first element’ of claim 1.”). Under regulations governing appeals to the Board, any argument not timely presented in an Appeal Brief will not be considered when filed for the first time in a Reply Brief, absent a Appeal 2013-003521 Application 11/873,265 5 In sum, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–12 is sustained for the reasons set forth above and the reasons presented by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner 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). AFFIRMED kmm showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012). The Appellant has not provided such a showing on this record. Therefore, we will not consider the Appellant’s new argument on appeal.