Ex Parte Cai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

11857569 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111857,569 09/19/2007 Jin Cai
134824 7590 09/28/2016
DeLio, Peterson & Curcio, LLC
700 State Street
Suite 402
New Haven, CT 06511
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.
YOR920070052US1 (006) 1158
EXAMINER
ROLAND, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2893
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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
Exparte JIN CAI, WILFRIED E. HAENSCH, TAKH. NING,
PHILIP J. OLDIGES and GHA V AM G. SHAHID!
Appeal2015-004560
Application 11/857,569
Technology Center 2800
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, ERIC S. FRAHM and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-13 and
15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
Introduction
The invention is directed to a series transistor device that reduces
Single-Event Upset (SEU). Specification 2-5.
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A series transistor device, comprising:
Appeal2015-004560
Application 11/857,569
a set of constituent transistors including two or more
constituent transistors connected in series, each constituent
transistor having a gate, a source, and a drain, the set of
constituent transistors comprising:
a single common series source for the set of constituent
transistors;
a single common series drain for the set of constituent
transistors;
a single common series gate for the set of constituent
transistors;
a first constituent transistor of the set of constituent
transistors having a first source and a first drain; and
a second constituent transistor of the set of constituent
transistors having a second source and a second drain, wherein
the set of constituent transistors has a same conductivity
type,
the single common series source is the first source,
the single common series drain is the second drain, and
at least a drain of one constituent transistor of the set of
constituent transistors is merged with a source of another one
constituent transistor of the set of constituent transistors,
wherein the series transistor device is a SOI device.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 3---6, 9, 10, 13, 15 and 17-19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Shimada et al. (US 5,528,056;
issued June 18, 1996. Final Rejection 2-8.
Claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Shimada and Hayakawa et al. (US
6,184,559 Bl; issued February 6, 2001). Final Rejection 8-12.
2
Appeal2015-004560
Application 11/857,569
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 7, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
March 6, 2015), the Answer (mailed January 20, 2015) and the Final
Rejection (mailed May 16, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Appellants argue Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent
claims 1 and 13 is improper because the "Examiner contends that reference
number '29,' as illustrated in [Shimada's] Figure 2, is a drain in a first
constituent transistor and a source in a second constituent transistor" and
therefore "results in the drain of one constituent transistor being merged with
the source of the other constituent transistor." Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds:
The merged source/drain region (29) of Shimada '056
corresponds to Appellants' own (FIG. 3) merged source/drain
region (202D and 204S). Although Shimada '056 may not
employ Appellants' own terminology when describing this
region, the merged source/drain region (29) connects the first and
second constituent transistors in series as claimed.
Answer 3.
Appellants contend Shimada's element 29 is a "region"
disposed between channel layers (16) of n-type TFT and "[t]here is no
teaching in Shimada that at least a drain of one constituent transistor
of the set of constituent transistors is merged with a source of another
3
Appeal2015-004560
Application 11/857,569
constituent transistor of the set of constituent transistors, as required
by Appellants' claim language." Appeal Brief 11-12. Appellants
further contend that, "[i]f Shimada would have intended for region 29
to be a drain and/or source, Shimada would not have described region
29 differently from source 25 and drain 26." Appeal Brief 12.
Shimada teaches "region 29 is of the same conductivity type as the
source region 25 and the drain region 26." Shimada, column 7, lines
14-15. Shimada further teaches:
Since the region 29 has been formed in self-alignment with the
gate electrode sections 7 a and 7b in the same manner as the
formation of the source region 25 and the drain region 26, the
channel subregions 16a and 16b are placed to face the gate
electrode sections 7a and 7b respectively, across the gate
insulating film 1 7.
Shimada, column 7, lines 6-12.
Shimada does not support the Examiner's findings that region
29 is a drain/source region. 1 We find Appellants' arguments
persuasive. We reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13, as well as, dependent claims 3---6, 9, 10,
15 and 17-19 for the same reasons supra.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
1 "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference." Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
4
Appeal2015-004560
Application 11/857,569
Appellants contend "the limitations presented in claims 1 and
13, which are also found in claim 11, are not taught in Shimada,
claims 11 and 12 are at least patentable for the reasons stated."
Appeal Brief 14. We find Appellants' argument persuasive.
Hayakawa fails to address Shimada's noted deficiency. See Final
Rejection 10-11. We reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 11, as well as, dependent claims 7, 8, 12 and 16 for
the same reasons state supra.
DECISION
The Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 9, 10, 13, 15
and 17-19 is reversed.
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 11, 12 and 16 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5