Ex Parte 6,534,805 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 5, 2014

90011833 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 5, 2014)

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.
90/011,833 08/02/2011 6,534,805 316732800300 4438
7590 06/06/2014
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90017
EXAMINER
ANDUJAR, LEONARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/06/2014 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 CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
Patent Owner and Appellant
___________

Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833
Patent 6,534,805 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the final
rejection of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and
306. We heard oral arguments on May 21, 2014. A transcript of that
hearing will be included in the record in due time.
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “a memory cell [that] includes a series
of four substantially oblong parallel active regions, arranged side-by-side
such that the inner active regions of the series include source/drain regions
for p-channel transistors, and the outer active regions include source/drain
regions for n-channel transistors.” Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A memory cell comprising a series of four
substantially oblong active regions formed within a
semiconductor substrate and arranged side-by-side with long
axes substantially parallel, wherein each of the inner active
regions of the series comprises a pair of source/drain regions for
a respective p-channel transistor, and each of the outer active
regions of the series comprises a pair of source/drain regions for
a respective n-channel transistor.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Ishida (M. Ishida et al., A Novel 6T-SRAM Cell Technology Designed with
Rectangular Patterns Scalable beyond 0.18 μm Generation and Desirable
for Ultra High Speed Operation, IEEE IEDM, pp. 201-204 (1998)).
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

3

Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Ishida and Osada (US 6,677,649 B2).

ANALYSIS
1

CLAIMS 1-4
Appellant correctly asserts, “This appeal turns on whether the
Examiner’s claim construction of ‘substantially oblong active regions’ is
proper under the Patent Office’s ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’
standard for reexaminations.” App. Br. 8.
Thus, the dispositive issue in the appeal is: Has the Examiner erred
by interpreting “substantially oblong active regions,” as recited in claim 1, to
encompass substantially rectangular active regions.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 8-20; Reply Br. 7-35. We
disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We agree with, and adopt as our
own, the findings and reasons (1) set forth by the Examiner in the office
action from which this appeal is taken and, (2) as set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner’s Answer responsive to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans.

1
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Nov 14, 2012), the Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.” filed Nov. 25, 2013), Declaration of Dr. Oliver Pohland
(“Pohland Decl.” filed Jan. 20, 2012), and the Answer (“Ans.” mailed Mar.
5, 2013) for their respective details. We have considered in this decision
only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Patent number 6,534,805, the subject of this appeal, is also referred to herein
as “Jin ʼ805.”
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

4

6-25). However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings
for emphasis as follows.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable construction “in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004). The Examiner and Appellant agree on this point of law (see, e.g.,
Ans. 7; App. Br. 8) but disagree as to the skilled artisan’s understanding of
“substantially oblong” in light of the Specification of Jin ʼ805.

Permissive, Non-Limiting Language Used
Initially, we note that the claims and Specification consistently use
permissive, non-limiting language with regard the claimed “substantially
oblong” shape and thus do not support Appellant’s assertion that rectangular
shapes are excluded. Claim 1 refers to “substantially” oblong and the only
guidance Appellant points to in the Specification is the discussion of beta
ratio—a discussion that similarly uses permissive language. See, e.g., Jin
ʼ805 7:16-17 (“the beta ratio should be > 1” (emphasis added)); 7:20-24
(“Consequently, an NMOS active region may be considered to be
substantially oblong if the length of the region is substantially constant and
if the width of the region varies by approximately 1/3 or less.” (emphasis
added)). The Specification indicates only that the beta ratio “should be”
greater than 1 and thus does not require such a beta ratio. Neither does the
Specification indicate how much greater than one defines a shape that is
“substantially oblong” as claimed but is not rectangular as shown in the prior
art. The Specification indicates an active region “may be” considered
substantially oblong under certain conditions but does not exclude a shape
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

5

being considered substantially oblong under other conditions such as a
rectangle with a beta ratio of one. The discussion of a width variance as
“1/3 or less” fails to indicate how close the variance can be to zero (i.e., how
close to a beta ratio of 1) to define a shape that is substantially oblong but
not rectangular. Thus, we conclude Appellant’s permissive language in
claim 1 and permissive language in discussing of circuit stability and beta
ratio does not limit the plain meaning of “substantially oblong” in claim 1 to
exclude a rectangular shaped active region.

“Substantially Oblong” Understanding Linked to Circuit Stability
Appellant contends the discussion of beta ratio in Jin ʼ805 at column
7, lines 12-17 followed at column 7, line 20 by, “Consequently, an NMOS
active region may be considered to be substantially oblong if . . . the width
of the region varies by approximately 1/3 or less along the length of the
region,” informs the skilled artisan that “substantially oblong” is intended to
exclude rectangular shaped active regions. See App. Br. 12; see also
Pohland Decl. ¶¶ 14-18. Appellant argues the sentence starting with
“consequently” ties all disclosed embodiments of substantially oblong active
regions to the discussion of beta ratio and circuit stability such that any
active region that is substantially oblong must exhibit a beta ratio greater
than one. App. Br. 12. We disagree.
Column 7, lines 17-20 make clear that “an embodiment” is presented
having a particular beta ratio (approximately 1.5) derived from particular
exemplary width ratios and “consequently” that particular exemplary
embodiment with a beta ratio of 1.5 is “considered to be substantially
oblong.” We do not find the sentence starting with “consequently” links all
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

6

exemplary embodiments to the preceding discussion of beta ratios and
circuit stability. For example, at column 6, lines 65-67, Jin ʼ805 states, “In
the embodiment of FIG. 2, the active regions are substantially oblong, and in
some cases may be substantially rectangular as well.” Thus, the
Specification of Jin ʼ805 clearly depicts and describes at least one
embodiment in which the active regions are both oblong and rectangular.
Furthermore, column 7, lines 24-32 recites,
Further, an NMOS active region may be considered to be
substantially oblong if the length of the region is substantially
constant and the width of the region by design varies only with
the respective widths of the access and latch transistors. In an
embodiment, “substantially oblong” may refer to any region or
structure having a length that is greater than or equal to
approximately three times its maximum width.
However, neither the claims nor the Specification of Jin ʼ805 require that the
latch and access transistors vary in width nor does the recitation of a
“maximum width” necessarily require that the width of the active region
varies. Thus, in these exemplary embodiments of Jin ʼ805, the active region
width need not vary over its length and hence rectangular active regions are
disclosed examples of “substantially oblong” active areas.
In view of the above discussion, we agree with the Examiner that it is
improper to interpret broad claim language to exclude an embodiment
disclosed in the Specification. Ans. 8 (see Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage
Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) “We normally do not
interpret claim terms in a way that excludes disclosed examples in the
specification.”) We, therefore, conclude the broad recitation of
“substantially oblong” in claim 1 cannot be narrowly construed to exclude
such disclosed examples.
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

7

Ensuring Circuit Stability
Appellant argues the Specification links the definition of
“substantially oblong” to SRAM circuit stability. App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br.
15-34; Pohland Decl. ¶¶ 15-23. Appellant specifically asserts, “That is,
circuit stability requires that the NMOS active region have a beta ratio > 1.”
App. Br. 12 (emphasis added). Appellant further contends, “a skilled artisan
would consider ‘substantially oblong active regions’ in the context of circuit
stability and would exclude cases of circuit instability, namely rectangular
shaped active regions.” App. Br. 13 (emphasis added).
We disagree. Even accepting, arguendo, Appellant’s arguments that
understanding all disclosed embodiments in the Specification of Jin ʼ805 is
informed by the discussion of circuit stability and beta ratio, nothing in the
record before us provides evidence that a rectangular shaped active region is
unstable such that the skilled artisan would exclude the design. Dr.
Pohland’s opinion provides no evidence in support of his assertions that beta
ratios greater than one ensure stability and thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Dr. Pohland’s opinion is of little probative weight. Ans. 17; see also
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 294
(Fed. Cir. 1985) (“Opinion testimony rendered by experts must be given
consideration, and while not controlling, generally is entitled to some
weight. Lack of factual support for expert opinion going to factual
determinations, however, may render the testimony of little probative value
in a validity determination.” (citations omitted)). Even if we accept Dr.
Pohland’s opinion that a beta ratio greater than one enhances or ensures
stability, Dr. Pohland does not indicate how large the beta ratio must be to
ensure stability. Dr. Pohland specifically states, “Even beta ratio values
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

8

slightly > 1 would not be expected to provide stable operation.” Pohland
Decl. ¶ 33. This suggests there are other factors that relate to circuit
stability. For example, special implants could be used to create different
threshold voltages using a rectangular active region (see Pohland Decl.
¶ 31), or the length, rather than width, of the latch and/or pass transistors
could be modified to modify beta ratio while the active region remains
rectangular (see Pohland Decl. ¶ 26). More importantly, the Examiner has
provided evidence (i.e., Ishida reference) that a rectangular active region “is
known in the art as [a] suitable shape for both n-type/p-type active regions
for memory cells such as a 6T-SRAM” and thus represents a stable circuit
design. Ans. 10. We agree. Dr. Pohland also acknowledges the rectangular
active regions of the Osada reference and does not indicate that such
rectangular active regions render the Osada transistor design unstable.
Pohland Decl. ¶¶ 35-37.
In view of the above discussion, based on a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred by interpreting
“substantially oblong active regions,” as recited in claim 1, to encompass
substantially rectangular active regions. We are similarly unpersuaded of
error in the rejection of claims 2-4 not argued separately.

CLAIMS 5 AND 6
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and 6 for
the same reasons as claim 1 contending Osada “would not cure the above
deficiencies of Ishida IEDM’s purely rectangular active regions.” App. Br.
20. For the same reasons as claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claims 5 and 6.
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

9

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 5 and 6 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
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

kis
Appeal 2014-002896
Reexamination Control 90/011,833

10

Patent Owner:
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles CA 90017

Third Party Requester:
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248