Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201814051724 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/051,724 10/11/2013 Po-Yu CHEN T5057-950 4937 95496 7590 01/25/2018 Hauptman Ham, LLP (TSMC) 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER GARCES, NELSON Y ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2814 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2018 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): tsmc@ipfirm.com sramunto @ ipfirm.com pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PO-YU CHEN, WAN-HUA HUANG, and JING-YING CHEN Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, TERRY J. OWENS, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In our Opinion, we refer to the Application filed October 11, 2013 (“the ’959 Application) and its Specification (“Spec.”); the Final Action mailed August 6, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Br. filed March 17, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 5, 20116 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed December 5, 2016 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-16, 21-24, and 26.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The claims are directed to semiconductor devices. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate having an active region; a drain region in the active region; a source region in the active region; a gate structure extending in a first direction over the active region, the gate structure arranged between the drain region and the source region in a second direction transverse to the first direction; and a conductive field plate extending in the second direction over an edge of the active region.4 2 Appellant TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD. is the applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 3 Claims 5, 7, and 25 are also pending and have been objected to by the Examiner as being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 1, 8. 4 Pending claims as amended in June 1, 2015 Amendment and entered as of August 6, 2015 Index of Claims. 2 Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Hiroki US 2006-0071273 A1 Apr. 6, 2006 Yang et al. US 2012-0187483 A1 July 26, 2012 (“Yang”) REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains and Appellant seeks review of the following rejections under 35 U.S.C § 102(a)(1): (1) claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 21-24, and 26 over Yang; and (2) claims 12 and 13 over Hiroki. Final Act. 3-8; Appeal Br. 6. The Examiner objects to claims 5—7 and 25. Final Act. 1. OPINION § 102(a) Rejection over Yang The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12, 14-16, 21-24, and 26 as anticipated by Yang. Final Act. 3. Appellant focuses argument on independent claims 1 and 12, arguing patentability of independent claim 21 for reasons analogous to those argued for claim 1. Appeal Br. 6, 9, and 10. We address independent claims 1 and 12 below. Claim 21 stands or falls with claim 1. Dependent claims stand or fall with the respective independent claims. Claim 1 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yang discloses a substrate 11 having an active region; a drain region 18 3 Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 in the active region; a source region 17 in the active region; a gate structure 13 extending in a first direction over the active region, the gate structure 13 arranged between the drain region 18 and the source region 17 in a second direction transverse to the first direction; and a conductive field plate extending in the second direction over an edge of the active region. Final Act. 3. The Examiner identifies the active region as “see, e.g., region between diffusion regions 18, i.e., leftmost and right most with channels located in between,” and the conductive plate as “see, e.g., horizontal portions of gate structure 13.” Id. The Examiner clarifies that an active region of a semiconductor is a region of the substrate where transistors are placed, thus a region containing different elements of a transistor including source, drain, channel, etc. Id. at 9; Ans. 3. Yang’s Figure 9C and a version of Yang’s Figure 9A annotated by the Examiner are reproduced below: -2 Fiq. 9C 4 Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 ut' 1* - - ♦ t.............., S® {jlrecUim V's -w-v4$Vx;; *■ v Sc^&rfegkjf* {*r«fe Itesgkm Eelgg sf As.tggs fesptsn * tdg« .-;f Ch$!insl Rc'gi»i? OyPtUMW >VHd J-gciigf Answer 4; see also Final Action App’x. Yang’s Figures 9A and 9C show an embodiment of Yang’s invention wherein a DMOS (double diffused metal oxide semiconductor) device includes a well 20, which is formed by blanket implantations which implants second conductive type impurities, such as N-type impurities, in the form of acceleration ions to the substrate. Yang. 40. This embodiment shows that the DMOS device may further include the well 20 as part of the channel. Id. Yang’s Figure 9C is a cross-sectional view of Figure 9A taken through the horizontal midpoint of the structure. Id. The Examiner identifies the edges of the active region and the locations of the field plate, source region, and drain region in Yang’s Figure 9A. Ans. 4; see also Final Action App’x. The Examiner also identifies where the field plate overlaps an edge of the active region, as required by claim 1. Id. The Examiner finds 5 Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 that Yang’s Figure 9A shows that horizontal portions of the field plate overlap an edge of the demarcated active region where all the components of the transistor are located. Id. at 5. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s identification of the active region. Appeal Br. 6-7. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood that, in Yang’s DMOS structure, a channel is formed between a source and a well-junction under the gate feature. Id. at 7. Appellant provides an annotated version of Yang’s Figure 9C to illustrate this position: body source t W 1?‘ li IStlralt* ■ V Id. at 7. Yang Figure 9C is a left-to-right cross-sectional view of Yang Figure 9A, supra. Appellant acknowledges that Yang describes the embodiment of Figures 9A-9C as showing that the DMOS device may further include well region 20 as part of the channel. Id. (citing Yang 40). However, Appellant contends that, even if the drift region of Yang’s DMOS (the upper portion of Yang’s well 20 between body region 14 and drain 18) is considered to be part of 6 Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 the channel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that an active region includes at least (1) a channel, (2) a source, and (3) a drain region, but a channel is only located between a source region and a drain region, and one of ordinary skill in the art would distinguish a channel from an active region. Id. Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art interpreting Yang would have understood that the boundaries of Yang’s channel are limited in the vertical direction in Figure 9A or the direction into the page in Figures 9B and 9C by the boundaries of source 17, such that the channel is located between a source and a drain. Id. at 8. Appellant provides an annotated version of Yang Figure 9A in explanation of the argument that the dimension of drain 18 is larger than the dimension of source 17, therefore the channel does not exist outside of the region beyond Yang’s source 17 because Yang’s structure provides no ability to induce charge transfer between source 17 and drain 18 in regions beyond the boundary of source 17, and Yang’s channel boundary is defined by the boundary of source 17. Id. 7 Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 asserted con.duc.tiye field plate ofLBMOS Yang’s Figure 9A as annotated by Appellant shows Appellant’s position that the conductive field plate is entirely outside the edge of the channel described by Yang. Id. Appellant contends that Yang fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the horizontal portions of gate 13 extending in the second direction overlaps an edge of the active region, as required by claim 1. Id. at 9. Resolution of the identification of the active region in Yang Figure 9A requires determination of the extent of the claimed “active region.” In summarizing the claimed subject matter Appellant identifies the various elements of the independent claims as described in paragraph 19 of the Specification and shown in Figure 1 of the ’959 Application. Appeal Br. 4-5. An annotated version of Figure 1, modified for clarity, is reproduced below: 8 Appeal 2017-002959 Application 14/051,724 active region 114 w-s. * . % 1 st section structure 120L i 1 i U...J.. of gate « 3 \ 2nd source/drain region 128L 1st source/drain 'r region 12SL gate structure 120’ 3rd section of gate structure ^ 120T /' conductive field plate .............^ edge of active ■ region 114T ! / 4 .i: ■ 1 1 X - Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation