Ex Parte Blish et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 11, 2004

09193193 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RICHARD C. BLISH II and MOHAMMAD MASSOODI
____________
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before GARRIS, WALTZ, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
WALTZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal from the primary examiner’s
final rejection of claims 8 through 15. Claims 1 through 7, which
are the only other claims in this application, stand withdrawn
from further consideration as directed to a non-elected invention
(Brief, page 2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
semiconductor device that is at least partially deprocessed, where
the device includes at least one conductive line, an insulator
surrounding a portion of the conductive line, the conductive line
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
2
includes a conductive layer, and the insulator is separated from
this conductive layer by a gap (Brief, page 3). Appellants state
that this gap is formed by removal of a portion of a barrier layer
disposed between the conductive layer and the insulator, while the
conductive line is physically detached from the insulator and thus
is capable of being removed by lifting off the conductive layer
(id.). Representative independent claim 8 is reproduced below:
8. A semiconductor device that is at least partially
deprocessed, the semiconductor device comprising:
at least one conductive line including a conductive layer; and
an insulator surrounding a portion of the conductive line, the
insulator being separated from the conductive layer by a gap, the
gap being formed by removal of a portion of a barrier layer
disposed between the conductive layer and the insulator, the
portion of the barrier layer being removed by exposing a second
portion of the barrier layer by removing a portion of the
insulator; and
etching the portion barrier layer after the portion of the
insulator is removed; and
wherein the conductive line is physically detached from the
insulator and is capable of being removed by lifting off the
conductive layer.
The examiner relies on Grill et al. (Grill), U.S. Patent No.
5,869,880, issued on Feb. 9, 1999 (filed Mar. 13, 1996), as the
sole evidentiary basis for the rejections on appeal (Answer, page
3). Claims 8 and 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Grill (Answer, page 4). Claim 9 stands rejected
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Grill (Answer, page
5). We reverse the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Grill discloses a semiconductor device
comprising at least one conductive line 7 including a conductive
layer, an insulator 4 surrounding a portion of the conductive line,
where the insulator 4 is separated from the conductive layer by a
gap, thereby the conductive line is physically detached from the
insulator 4 and is capable of being removed by lifting off the
conductive layer (Answer, page 4, citing Fig. 7e and col. 3, ll.
38-42). The examiner finds that layer 2 of Grill is the substrate
rather than a dielectric, with the dielectric layer in Fig. 7e
represented by reference numeral 4 rather than 2 (Answer, page 7).
The gap formation, removing and etching limitations of claim 8
on appeal have been considered by the examiner as “process
limitations” that do not affect the product as claimed (Answer,
page 4). Since the examiner has found that the conductive line 7
is physically detached from the insulator 4, the examiner relies
upon appellants’ statement that such a conductive line would be
capable of being removed by lifting off, and therefore all the
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
4
limitations of claim 8 on appeal have been disclosed by Grill
(Answer, page 6). We disagree.
The examiner must apply to the language of the claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account any enlightenment by way of definition or
otherwise found in the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we
agree with the examiner’s analysis that the “insulator” recited in
claim 8 on appeal may be construed as the dielectric line 4 of
Grill (see appellants’ specification, page 3, ll. 16-17).
Similarly, we determine that the term “physically detached” as
recited in claim 8 on appeal should be construed as meaning that
“physical contact between the conductive layers ... and the barrier
layers ... is broken,” thus allowing the conductive layers to be
lifted off (specification, page 5, l. 22-page 6, l. 7).
As correctly argued by appellants, the examiner has not
indicated that Grill discloses or suggests that the portion of the
substrate 2 under the conductive line 7 is removed in any manner
(Brief, page 6). Therefore the examiner has not shown that the
conductive line 7 is not attached to the underlying substrate
(id.). Accordingly, although the examiner has shown that the
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
5
conductive line 7 is physically detached from the insulator
(dielectric) 4 in Grill, we determine that the examiner has failed
to establish that the conductive line 7 of Grill “is capable of
being removed by lifting off the conductive layer” as required by
claim 8 on appeal (compare appellants’ Fig. 4B with Fig. 7e of
Grill). Furthermore, as correctly argued by appellants (Brief,
page 7), the semiconductor device of Grill would not function
if there was complete physical detachment and removal of the
conductive line 7. The examiner’s argument that Fig. 7e of
Grill is merely an intermediate product (Answer, page 7) is not
persuasive since Grill does not disclose or suggest that this
intermediate product was physically detached from the underlying
substrate.
Additionally, we note that claim 8 on appeal recites that the
gap is “formed by removal of a portion of a barrier layer” (italics
added). Therefore, this process limitation does further limit the
product as claimed, since it follows that at least some portion of
the barrier layer must remain as part of the semiconductor device,
located between the conductive layer and the insulator (see
appellants’ Fig. 4B). The examiner has not cited any disclosure in
Grill of a barrier layer.
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
6
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of anticipation in view of
Grill. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138
(Fed. Cir. 1986)(anticipation requires that the prior art reference
disclose, either expressly or under the principles of inherency,
every limitation of the claim). The rejection of claim 9 is also
based on Grill in combination with the examiner’s “official notice”
(Answer, pages 5-6). The deficiencies discussed above are not
remedied by this “official notice.” Accordingly, both of the
rejections on appeal are reversed.
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
7
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
BRADLEY R. GARRIS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
THOMAS A. WALTZ ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
TAW/jrg
Appeal No. 2004-0621
Application No. 09/193,193
8
Kelly K. Kordzik Winstead
Sechrest & Minick PC
PO BOX 50784
1201 Main Street
Dallas, TX 75250-0784