Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11543638 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte QIANG CHEN and JUNG-SUK GOO
____________________

Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 7, 15-18, and 20. Claims 5, 8-14, and 19 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to
disputed portions of the claim, reads as follows:
Claim 1: A silicon-on-insulator (SOI) transistor test
structure comprising:
a gate situated over a semiconductor body and over a
doped halo;
at least two semiconductor body contacts situated on
opposing sides of said doped halo, wherein one or more of said
at least two semiconductor body contacts forms a direct
electrical contact with said doped halo underlying said gate,
thereby increasing current flow to said doped halo to facilitate
measuring body-effect in said transistor test structure.

The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US 2002/0109187 A1).1 Ans. 3-
4.

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-4 and 16-18, and
Appellants present similar arguments for independent claims 1 and 15 (see
generally Br. 6-14). Claims 1 and 15 each recite similar subject matter,
namely “increasing current flow to [a] doped halo to facilitate measuring
Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638

3
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 6 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsumoto.2 Ans. 4-5.
(3) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 7 and 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsumoto and Hwang (US
6,218,248 B1).3 Ans. 5-6.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend (Br. 6-16) that the Examiner erred in rejecting (a)
claims 1-4 and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), (b) claim 6 under § 103(a)
over Matsumoto, and (c) claims 7 and 20 under § 103(a) over Matsumoto
and Hwang for numerous reasons, including:
(A) Matsumoto fails to teach or suggest a “doped halo” (Br. 8), which
is shown in Figure 2A of Appellants’ Drawings and is defined by the
Specification at page 8, lines 19-22 as “a suitably doped portion of a
semiconductor body … situated between active source/drain regions of the
semiconductor body, but where the doped halo does not completely fill that
region” (Br. 8);

body-effect in said transistor test structure” where the doped halo is under a
gate, which in turn is situated over a semiconductor body (claims 1 and 15).
In view of the foregoing, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims consisting of claims 1-4 and 15-18.
2 Appellants rely on the arguments presented with respect to claim 1 (from
which claim 6 depends) for patentability as to claim 6 (Br. 15). Therefore,
we decide the appeal of claim 6 for the same reasons given for claim 1.
3 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 7 and 20 (Br. 15-16).
Appellants argue claims 7 and 20 collectively (Br. 15-16) without addressing
the specific limitation recited in claims 7 and 20 of a gate being heavily
doped with an N-type dopant (see claims 7 and 20). Appellants rely on the
arguments presented with respect to claims 1 and 15 from which claims 7
and 20 respectively depend (Br. 15-16).
Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638

4
(B) Appellants’ doped halos can be used to measure body-effect of a
test structure in the manner described at page 2, lines 1-4 of the
Specification, and as known in the art, doped halos such as elements 206 and
208 of the test structure 200 shown in Appellants’ Figure 2A “can be thin,
heavily doped regions having the same doping type as a constituent
semiconductor body, that are fabricated tightly against junction walls
between source/drain regions and a body of the transistor structure in order
to limit the extent of depletion regions formed within the body of the
transistor structure” (Br. 9);
(C) Matsumoto does not use the term “doped halo,” and Matsumoto’s
structure is not analogous to the doped halo described by Appellants’
invention (Br. 9);
(D) because “direct electrical contact” means that there is no
intermediate region between the doped halo and the semiconductor body
contacts, Matsumoto fails to teach or suggest a semiconductor body contact
forming a direct electrical contact with a doped halo, as recited in claim 1
(Br. 12);
(E) Matsumoto fails to teach or suggest a doped halo offering any of
the advantages or improvements provided by the invention of claim 1 (Br.
13);
(F) Matsumoto’s pocket region does not lie along portions of junction
walls between source and drain regions 50 and 60, does not completely fill
the doped region, and thus does not increase accuracy as much as
Appellants’ doped halo (Br. 10-11);
Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638

5
(G) the pocket region described in paragraph [0298] of Matsumoto is
not equivalent to the doped halo recited in claims 1 and 15, either in
structure or function (Br. 10);
(H) Matsumoto’s region 17b is not under gate 71 as shown in Figure
37 because the dashed line delineates P-body region 17b from body/SOI
layer 4 (Br. 11-12);
(I) regarding claims 7 and 20, Hwang fails to cure the deficiencies of
Matsumoto (Br. 16), and Matsumoto fails to teach or suggest a doped halo as
argued with respect to claims 1 and 15, a doped halo under a gate, and a
semiconductor body contact forming a direct electrical contact with a doped
halo, or two semiconductor body contacts situated on opposing sides of a
doped halo (Br. 15-16).
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and findings found at pages 6-
9 of the Answer.
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 6-16), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1-4 and 15-18 as being
anticipated and (ii) claims 6, 7, and 20 as being obvious because Matsumoto
fails to teach the “doped halo” limitation at issue in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638

6
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken, as well as the Advisory Action mailed January 26, 2010, and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-
9) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner.
At issue is the meaning of “doped halo” as that term is used in the
claims and as defined by Appellants’ Specification (Spec. 6:11-14; doped
halo 108 shown in Figs. 1A and 1B). Appellants state (Br. 3-4, Summary of
Claimed Subject Matter, claim 1) that “doped halo” is defined in the
Specification at page 8, lines 19-22. Doped halo 208 (Figs. 2A and 2B) is
described as being “formed, for example, by doping the region of
semiconductor body 202 under gate 204 with a suitable P type dopant”
(Spec. 8:20-22), and “[a]s shown in Figure 2B, doped halo 208 in
semiconductor body 202 is situated under gate 204 and adjacent to
semiconductor body tie region 210” (Spec. 8:19-20). Doped halo 108 shown
in Figures 1A and 1B is similarly described in the Specification (Spec. 6:11-
14).
In this light, Appellants’ Contentions (A), (B), and (C) are not
persuasive because Appellants’ arguments improperly narrow the definition
of doped halo which is provided at page 8, lines 20-22 of the Specification,
simply as formed by doping the region of a semiconductor body that is under
a gate with a suitable P type dopant.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-9) that Matsumoto meets the
limitations of claim 1, including disclosing a doped halo (P doped region
17b) under a gate (gate oxide film 5, side wall 6, and gate electrode 71).
Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638

7
Matsumoto discloses a pocket region that is equivalent to the doped halo of
the claims (¶ [0298]; Figs. 36 and 37). We also agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 7-8) that Matsumoto’s pocket implant 17b is equivalent to a halo
implant because we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that Ravindhran (US
5,395,773) (col. 2, ll. 57-59) serves as extrinsic evidence proving that a
pocket implant is equivalent to a halo implant. Appellants have not filed a
Reply Brief or otherwise contradicted this assertion and definition provided
by the Examiner.
Additionally, while features of an apparatus or system may be recited
either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be
distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In
re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[A]pparatus claims
cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants
have failed to structurally distinguish the prior art’s pocket region from the
test structure and system having a doped halo as recited in representative
claim 1. And, the function of “increasing current flow to said doped halo to
facilitate measuring body-effect in said transistor test structure” recited in
independent claims 1 and 15 does not serve to distinguish Appellants’
invention from Matsumoto’s disclosure. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477-78.
Therefore, Appellants’ Contentions (E), (F), and (G) relating to the function
of Matsumoto’s device are not persuasive.
Appellants’ Contentions (A), (B), (D), (E), and (F) listed supra (see
Br. 9-13) are not commensurate in scope with the language of representative
claim 1 and are therefore not persuasive. Representative claim 1 does not
recite source/drain regions, that there are no intermediate regions between
Appeal 2011-000671
Application 11/543,638

8
the doped halo and the semiconductor body contact, and/or the degree to
which accuracy is of body-effect measurement is increased.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of representative
claim 1 as well as claims 2-4 and 15-18 grouped therewith as being
anticipated by Matsumoto. We sustain the rejection of claim 6 for the
reasons provided as to claim 1 and because Appellants have not argued
claim 6 separately. We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 20 for similar
reasons as provided for claims 1 and 15 from which claims 7 and 20
respectively depend.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 15-18 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6, 7, and 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 7, 15-18, and 20 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

peb