Ex Parte Cappellani et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 20, 2019

13996505 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/996,505 06/20/2013
31817 7590 03/22/2019
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Annalisa Cappellani
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.
42P40218 5178
EXAMINER
KOO, LAMONT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2019 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
intelparalegal@schwabe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANNALISA CAPPELLANI,
KELIN J. KUHN, RAFAEL RIOS, GOPINATH BHIMARASETTI,
TAHIR GHANI, and SEIYON KIM
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
maintained rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We reverse.
1 We refer to the Specification filed June 20, 2013 ("Spec."), the Final
Office Action dated January 11, 2016 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed
June 10, 2016 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated December 29,
2016 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed February 15, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify Intel Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
THE INVENTION
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to semiconductor
devices having modulated nanowire counts and methods for forming such
devices. Spec., Abstract.
Claims 1 and 13-the independent claims-are representative.
1. A semiconductor structure, comprising:
a first semiconductor device comprising a plurality of nano wires
disposed above a substrate and stacked in a first vertical plane
with a first uppermost nanowire; and
a second semiconductor device comprising one or more nanowires
disposed above the substrate and stacked in a second vertical
plane with a second uppermost nanowire, the second
semiconductor device comprising one or more fewer nanowires
than the first semiconductor device, and the first and second
uppermost nanowires disposed in a same plane orthogonal to
the first and second vertical planes.
13. A semiconductor structure, comprising:
a first semiconductor device comprising a first plurality of
nanowires disposed above a substrate and stacked in a first
vertical plane with a first uppermost nanowire;
a second semiconductor device comprising a second plurality of
nanowires disposed above the substrate and stacked in a second
vertical plane with a second uppermost nanowire, the second
semiconductor device comprising one or more fewer nanowires
than the first semiconductor device; and
a third semiconductor device comprising one or more nanowires
disposed above the substrate and stacked in a third vertical
plane with a third uppermost nanowire, the third semiconductor
device comprising one or more fewer nanowires than the
second semiconductor device, and the first, second and third
uppermost nanowires disposed in a same plane orthogonal to
the first, second and third vertical planes.
Appeal Br. (Claims App'x) 17, 19.
2
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as follows:
Claims 1-3 and 6-12 over Chang '993 3;
Claim 4 over Chang '993 in view of Kim4;
Claim 5 over Chang '993 in view of Hobbs5;
Claims 13-15, 18, and 20-22 over Chang '993 in view of
Chang '022 6;
Claim 16 over Chang '993 in view of Chang '022 and Kim;
Claim 17 over Chang '993 in view of Chang '022 and Hobbs;
Claim 19 over Chang '993 in view of Chang '022 and Chang '473 7;
Claims 23 and 24 over Chang'993 in view of Chang '022 and
Bangsaruntip8; and
Claim 25 over Chang '993 in view of Chang '022 and Orlowski. 9
DISCUSSION
We are persuaded that the Examiner has failed to meet the Office's
burden of establishing the unpatentability of the claims. For any ground of
3 Chang et al., US 2013/0153993 Al, published June 20, 2013
("Chang '993").
4 Kim et al., US 2004/0063286 Al, published April 1, 2004 ("Kim").
5 Hobbs et al., US 2012/0007052 Al, published January 12, 2012 ("Hobbs").
6 Chang et al., US 2010/0295022 Al, published November 25, 2010
("Chang'022").
7 Chang et al., US 2011/0031473 Al, published February 10, 2011
("Chang '473").
8 Bangsaruntip et al., US 2010/0193770 Al, published August 5, 2010
("Bangsaruntip ").
9 Orlowski et al., US 2007 /0218628 Al, published September 20, 2007
("Orlowski").
3
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
rejection, "the [E]xaminer bears the initial burden ... of presenting a prima
facie case ofunpatentability." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). We add the following.
Claim 1 requires a first semiconductor device comprising a plurality
of nanowires stacked in a first vertical plane and a second semiconductor
device comprising at least one fewer nanowires stacked in a second vertical
plane. Claim 13 requires first, second, and third semiconductor devices,
each comprising nanowires stacked, respectively, in first, second, and third
vertical planes, wherein the second semiconductor has at least one less
nanowire than the first, and the third at least one less than the second. The
uppermost nanowires in the first and second semiconductor devices
( claim 1 ), or in the first, second, and third semiconductor devices ( claim 13 ),
are "disposed in a same plane orthogonal to the ... vertical planes" in which
the nanowires are stacked.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness highlighting that limitations as to the number of
nanowires in the recited semiconductor devices and uppermost nanowires
being disposed in the same plane orthogonal to the vertical planes. Appeal
Br. 6-9, 10-11.
As to claim 1, the Examiner relies on a nanowire mesh device 120 and
a FINFET device 122 and selection of particular thicknesses of materials
included in these devices. Final Act. 2-3. As to the first semiconductor
device, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Chang '993 of a nanowire
mesh device 120 comprising semiconductor material 110, present in two
layers, for the first semiconductor device comprising a plurality of
nanowires, respectively. Final Act. 2 (citing Chang '993 ,r 38, Fig. 4A);
4
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
see also Ans. 2-3 (citing Chang '993 ,r 38, Fig. 13A). As to the second
semiconductor device, the Examiner relies on a FINFET device 122
comprising semiconductor material 144, which the Examiner maintains is
also a nanowire device. Final Act. 2-3 (citing Chang '993 ,r 38, Fig. 4B);
see also Ans. 2-3 (citing Chang '993 ,r 38, Fig. 13B). As to the first and
second uppermost nanowires being disposed in a same plane, the Examiner
relies on Chang '993 as disclosing the range of thicknesses for the upper
layer 110, as well as sequential layers 112, 110, 112, 106, and 104
underlying the upper layer 110 in semiconductor device 120 (Figs. 4A &
13A), the range of thicknesses for layers 144 and 104 in semiconductor
device 122 (Figs. 4B & 13B), and the fact that the top of upper layer 110 can
be the same height as the top of layer 144 if certain thicknesses of the
various layers are selected. Ans. 3 (citing Chang '993 ,r,r 29-30 32-33); see
also Final Act. 2-3. Specifically, the Examiner relies on selected
thicknesses in which the upper layer 110 is 5 nm where the sum of layers is
100 nm in semiconductor device 120 and the layer 144 being 50 nm where
the sum of layers is also 100 nm in semiconductor device 122. Ans. 3.
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious modify the
invention of Chang '993 to arrive at the claimed invention because "such a
modification would have involved discovering the optimum or working
ranges [and] involves only routine skill in the art" (Final Act. 3 (citing In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955))), and because "such a modification
would have involved a mere [change] in the size of a component" and such
is "generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art"
(id. ( citing In re Rose, 220 F .2d 459 ( CCP A 1965)) ).
5
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
In Aller, the court set forth the general rule that the discovery of an
optimum value of a variable in a known process is normally obvious, but
exceptions to this general rule include where the parameter optimized was
not recognized in the art to be a result effective variable and where the
results were unexpectedly good. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA
1977). The Examiner fails here to set forth any basis for the thicknesses of
the various elements being result effective. See generally Final Act.; Ans.
Moreover, the Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how optimizing the
thicknesses using routine experimentation would lead one of ordinary skill
in the art to the thicknesses relied on in the rejection. Id. Further, the
Examiner fails to sufficiently explain how a 5 nm thick layer 110 in
semiconductor device 120 is properly considered to be "disposed in a same
plane" as a 50 nm thick layer 144 in semiconductor device 122. Id.
In Rose, the court held that limitations to size and weight did not
distinguish over prior art because "it at most relates to the size of the article
under consideration which is not ordinarily a matter of invention. In re
Rose, 220 F.2d at 463. The Examiner's reliance on Rose here is,
accordingly, misplaced because the necessary modification of Chang '993
requires more than simply changing the size of the article, it involves
changing the relative sizes of component parts to reach an equal sum of
thicknesses of the layers in semiconductor devices 120 and 122.
In sum, there is no sufficient cogent articulated rationale supported by
evidence why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
semiconductor devices in Chang '993 to arrive at a first semiconductor
device comprising a plurality of nano wires stacked in a first vertical plane
and a second semiconductor device comprising at least one fewer nanowires
6
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
stacked in a second vertical plane wherein the uppermost nanowire in the
first semiconductor device and the uppermost nanowire in the second
semiconductor device are "disposed in a same plane orthogonal to the ...
vertical planes" in which the nanowires are stacked. "[O]bviousness
concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have
been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to
arrive at the claimed invention." Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F .3d
1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
On this record, accordingly, the Examiner's articulated reasoning falls
short of that necessary for a prima facie case. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017 (CCP A 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of
supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ... resort to
speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in its factual basis."); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA
1962).
The Examiner's further reliance on Kim and Hobbs in the rejections
of claims 4 and 5, respectively, does not remedy the deficiency as to the
rejection of independent claim 1. See Final Act. 5---6.
As to claim 13, the Examiner relies on Chang '993 's nano wire mesh
device 120 as the first semiconductor device and on FINFET device 122 as
the third semiconductor device. Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner first cites
semiconductor material 110 in nanowire mesh device 120 for the first
plurality of nanowires (id. at 6 (citing Chang '993 ,r 38, Fig. 4A)), but also
cites semiconductor nanowires 142 in Figure 12A for this same element,
particularly for disclosing three nanowires (id. at 7 (citing Chang '993 ,r,r 38,
60, Fig. 12A); see also Ans. 5). As in the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner
7
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
relies on FINFET device 122 as including a single nanowire, identified as
element 144 in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 6 (citing Chang '993 ,r 38,
Fig. 4B)) and as element 156 in the Answer (Ans. 5 (citing Chang '993
,r,r 38, 60, Figs. 4B, 12B)).
The Examiner relies on Chang '022 for disclosing a second
semiconductor device comprising a second plurality of nano wires stacked in
a second vertical plane. Final Act. 7 ( citing Chang '022 ,r,r 22, 24, 27,
Fig. 12). The Examiner maintains that the device with elements 104 and
110, depicted in Figure 12, constitutes disclosure of a "second
semiconductor device ... comprising two nanowires." Id.; see also Ans. 5.
On this record, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
for the rejection of claim 13. The Examiner simply fails to squarely address
the limitation in claim 13, that "the first, second and third uppermost
nano wires [are] disposed in the same plane orthogonal to the first, second
and third vertical planes." Final Act. 6-7. As such, in addition to the
deficiencies detailed as to the rejection of claim 1, there is no showing on
this record as to the thicknesses of layers in the second semiconductor
device from Chang '022. The Examiner also fails to establish a sound basis
for the second semiconductor device comprising two nanowires (rather than
three) because the Examiner's reasoning neglects layer 114 in Figure 12,
which Chang '022 specifically identifies as leading to nanowire bar 140, just
as layer 110 provides nano wire bar 146 and layer 104 provides nano wire bar
148. See, e.g., Chang '022 ,r,r 27-28, 54, Figs. 8, 12.
On this record, accordingly, the Examiner's articulated reasoning falls
short of that necessary for a prima facie case. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d at
1017; In re Sporck, 301 F.2d at 690.
8
Appeal2017-005568
Application 13/996,505
The Examiner's reliance on Kim, Hobbs, Chang '473, Bangsaruntip,
and Orlowski in the further rejections of dependent claims does not remedy
the deficiencies as to the rejection of independent claim 13.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of all claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-25 is reversed.
REVERSED
9