Ex Parte Adkisson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

13329440 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/329,440
134359 7590
Gibb & Riley, LLC
844 West Street
Suite 200
FILING DATE
12/19/2011
05/24/2016
Annapolis, MD 21401
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James W. Adkisson
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.
BUR920110100US1 4056
EXAMINER
CHANG,JAYC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2895
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2016 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):
gfsupport@gibbiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES W. ADKISSON, BRENT A. ANDERSON,
ANDRES BRYANT, and EDWARD J. NOWAK
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Background
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of forming an
integrated circuit structure by using a blanket compensating implant
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
combined with an angled or asymmetric compensating implant made
through a mask. Spec. i-f 1 and Abstract. The angled implant is made
through the mask before the gate conductor is formed. Id. i-f 43. The
Specification explains that the fabrication method controls threshold voltage
and prevents the angled implant from reaching the source/ drain regions of
adjacent devices. Id. The method also avoids an additional masking step by
utilizing the same mask to form the angled implant and gate conductor. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and is reproduced below
from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method of fonning an integrated circuit stn1cture, said
method comprising:
forming a semiconductor channel impurity in a channel location
of a substrate;
hnpfanfrng a first compensating implant into said channel
location of said substrate at an angle that is perpendicular to a
top surface of said substrate;
patten1ing a mask on said first Cl)111pensating impla11t in said
substrate, said mask including an opening exposing said
channel location of said substrate;
implanting a second compensating implant into said channel
location of said substrate through said opening at an angle that
is offset from perpendicular to said top surface of said substrate,
said second compensating implant being positioned closer to a
first side of said channel location relative to an opposite second
side of said channel locationi and said second cmnpensating
irnplant cmnprising a material having the same doping polarity
as said semiconductor channel impurity;
forming a gate conductor above said channel location of said
substrate in said opening of said mask;
removing said mask to leave said gate conductor standing on
said channel location of said substrate; and
2
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
irnplanting source and drain implants into source/drain regions
of said substrate adjacent to said channel location.
App. Br. 24 (Claims App'x).
Shirahata
Kapoor
Chatterjee
Wann
Maszara
The References
us 5,594,264
us 5,943,576
US 6,482, 724 B 1
US 6,653,686 B2
US 2011/0062443 Al
The Rejections
Jan. 14, 1997
Aug. 24, 1999
Nov. 19, 2002
Nov. 25, 2003
Mar. 17, 2011
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Shirahata, Wann, Kapoor, and
Chatterjee; and
2. Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Shirahata, Wann, Kapoor, Chatterjee,
and Maszara.
OPINION
After having considered each of Appellants' contentions and the
evidence presented in this Appeal, we determine that Appellants have not
identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, we affirm these rejections for the reasons
expressed in the Final Action, Answer, and below.
Rejection 1
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1 and 7 together, relying
on limitations common to both claims, and argue separately the patentability
3
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
of claim 13. App. Br. 11-19. Appellants do not present separate arguments
for the patentability of claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14--17, but, rather, represent
that each claim stands or falls with its parent independent claim. Id. at 19.
Thus, we limit our discussion to claims 1 and 13. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claim 1. As is relevant to the issues on appeal, the Examiner finds
that Shirahata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, except for (1) the
specific steps for forming the gate structure, including patterning a mask on
the first compensating implant, and (2) implanting a second compensating
implant into the channel location of the substrate through the opening in the
mask at an angle offset from perpendicular and, after implanting the second
compensating implant, forming the gate conductor in the opening of the
mask. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Shirahata 9:13-15, 21-22, 31-32, 34--37, 41-
44, Figs. 11-15). Regarding these limitations, the Examiner finds that Wann
discloses a method of forming a gate structure in a field-effect transistor
("PET") device comprising, inter alia, patterning a mask on a substrate. Id.
at 3--4 (citing Wann 5:61---6:22, Figs. 6-10). The Examiner finds that
Chatterjee discloses a method of forming a PET device comprising
implanting a second compensating implant and forming a gate conductor in
the opening of the mask as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5 (citing Chatterjee
4:28--43, Figs. 4B, 4D); Advisory Act. 2 ("as shown by Figs. 4B and 4D of
Chatterjee, the same mask used to form the second compensating implant is
then used to form a gate structure ( 160)"). The Examiner further finds that
"the mask and gate structure of Chatterjee are analogous to the mask and
gate structure of Wann," such that when the teachings of the prior art are
combined, "the mask is used to form the second compensating implant[]
4
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
(taught by Chatterjee), and subsequently used to form the gate structure ...
[as] taught by Wann." Advisory Act. 2.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
Shirahata's method to include Wann's step of forming a gate structure using
a mask "for the purpose of using a suitable and well-known method in
forming a gate structure over a channel location of a substrate in a PET
device." Final Act. 4. The Examiner also concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify the combined teachings of Shirahata and Wann to include
the above-described steps of Chatterjee in order to form a PET device "with
an ideal structure capable of achieving a high transistor on current with a
low transistor off current." Id. at 6 (citing Chatterjee 1 :28--42).
Appellants argue that the references cited in the Examiner's rejection
show unrelated and disconnected steps of forming gate conductors,
compensating implants, angled implants, and masks with openings, and fail
to disclose "patterning a mask on a compensating implant, much less
forming an angled implant and gate conductor through the very same mask."
App. Br. 12-13, 17-18; Reply Br. 1-2. In particular, Appellants argue that
Shirahata's disclosure would not have led an ordinarily skilled artisan to
pattern a mask on a previously formed compensation implant, and then form
an angled compensating implant and gate conductor through the mask,
because Shirahata forms a gate insulator and gate conductor directly on a
uniform buried layer. App. Br. 13-14. Appellants also argue that Wann
discloses a single compensating implant formed through an opening in a
mask and centered below the gate conductor, i.e., the mask is not patterned
on a previously formed compensating implant and an angled compensating
implant is not formed in Wann's fabrication method. Id. at 14--15.
5
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
Similarly, Appellants point to Figures 5A and 6A of Kapoor, and Figure 4C
of Chatterjee, and contend that these figures do not disclose, and would not
have led the ordinarily skilled artisan to pattern a mask on a compensating
implant, and then use the same mask to form an angled compensating
implant and gate conductor. Id. at 15-17.
We are not persuaded, because Appellants' arguments are not
germane to the fundamental basis of the Examiner's rejection. For example,
the Examiner does not rely on Shirahata for disclosing the steps of
patterning a mask on a first compensating implant and, subsequently,
forming an angled implant and gate conductor through the mask. E.g., Final
Act. 3---6; Ans. 7-8. Rather, the Examiner relies on Shirahata as teaching,
inter alia, implanting a first compensating implant, forming a gate structure
(although not the specific steps utilized), forming source and drain
extensions, and forming source and drain implants. 2 See Final Act. 3. Thus,
Appellants' arguments as to what Shirahata does not disclose are without
merit where the Examiner relies on Wann and Chatterjee for teaching those
steps of the recited method. Final Act. 3---6; Ans. 7-12. Appellants' similar
arguments regarding Wann, Kapoor, and Chatterjee are unconvincing of
reversible error for the same reason.
Appellants' argument as to Chatterjee's Figure 4C teaching also is
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection because the Examiner
relies on the embodiment of Chatterjee' s fabrication method shown in
Figure 4B, not Figure 4C. Final Act. 5; Advisory Act. 2. Figure 4B shows
2 We note that Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings in this
regard. For example, Appellants admit that Shirahata discloses a blanket
compensating implant. App. Br. 17.
6
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
an embodiment of the invention, wherein, "[ fJollowing the removal of the
gate structure 110, an angled implant is performed to form region 145."
Chatterjee 4:44--46. Figure 4C, on the other hand, shows a "further
embodiment" of the invention, wherein "both regions 140 and 145 are
formed using multiple angled n-type and p-type implants." Id. at 4:60-64.
Moreover, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("[T]he test [for
obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."). Here, Appellants attack
each of Shirahata, Wann, Kapoor, and Chatterjee individually instead of
focusing on the combined teachings of the applied prior art as a whole.
Appellants also contend that Chatterjee teaches away from the recited
steps of forming one non-angled implant without a mask and a second,
angled implant using a mask formed on the non-angled implant, because
Chatterjee "requires that both implants 140, 145 be formed through an
opening." App. Br. 16-17.
We discern no merit in Appellants' argument. "A reference does not
teach away ... if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
invention but does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage'
investigation in to the invention claimed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants rely on
disclosures in Chatterjee that, at most, express a preference for forming both
implants through an opening in the mask, but do not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage investigation into the invention as claimed.
7
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as claims 2-5 and 8-11, which depend
therefrom.
Claim 13. Claim 13 recites a method that is similar to the methods
recited in claims 1 and 7, and further requires: ( 1) forming a gate insulator
material on the mask and channel location after patterning the mask, and (2)
that the size of the mask opening controls the size of the second
compensating implant without affecting the size of the first compensating
implant (the "size limitation"). App. Br. 26-27 (Claims App'x).
In addressing the further limitations of claim 13, the Examiner finds
that Kapoor discloses a method of forming a gate structure that comprises
the intermediate processing steps of "forming a gate insulator material ( 416)
on a mask (404) and a channel location of a substrate (400)." Final Act. 4
(citing Kapoor Figs. 8A-10A). The Examiner further finds that the
combined teachings of Shirahata, Wann, Kapoor, and Chatterjee disclose the
size limitation, because the first compensating implant is formed before the
mask is patterned, such that the opening of the mask would affect only the
size of the second compensating implant. Id. at 6.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify
the method of the combined invention of Shirahata and Wann to further
include Kapoor' s step of forming a gate insulator on the mask and channel
location "for the purpose of using suitable and well-known processing steps
of forming a gate structure (including [a] gate insulator and [a] gate
electrode) within a PET when utilizing a mask." Id. at 4--5. Further, as
explained previously, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify those teachings to include Chatterjee's step of forming a
8
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
second compensating implant as recited in the claim to form "a FET device
with an ideal structure capable of achieving a high transistor on current with
a low transistor off current." Id. at 6.
Appellants argue that "as shown in the previous discussion ... none
of the prior art (alone or combined) even suggest[ s] patterning a mask on a
previously formed compensation implant, much less forming an angled
compensating implant and gate conductor through the very same mask as the
claims define." App. Br. 18. Appellants further argue that claim 13 requires
the size of the opening in the mask to control the size of the second
compensating implant without affecting the size of the first compensating
implant. Id. Appellants' unembellished arguments, however, do not
identify any error in the Examiner's articulated reasoning as it pertains to the
method recited in claim 13. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art."). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection
of independent claim 13, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as well as claims 14--17,
which depend therefrom.
Rejection 2
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, and 18 over the combination of
Shirahata, Wann, Kapoor, Chatterjee, and Maszara. Final Act. 7.
Appellants' arguments, however, are directed to the patentability of claims 1
and 7 (argued together) and claim 13, none of which are included in the
Examiner's rejection. App. Br. 20-22. Specifically, Appellants argue for
reversal by providing the same contentions presented for Rejection 1. Id.
9
Appeal2014-007831
Application 13/329,440
Appellants further argue that ivfaszara does not cure the deficiencies in the
combination of Shirahata, Wann, Kapoor, and Chatterjee. Id. at 20-21.
For the reasons discussed in connection with Rejection 1, we find no
deficiency in the combined teachings of Shirahata, Wann, Kapoor, and
Chatterjee that requires curing by Maszara. Thus, we affirm the rejection of
claims 6, 8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION/ORDER
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are 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).
AFFIRMED
10