Ex Parte CHO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13587612 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

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.
13/587,612 08/16/2012 Sung Yoon CHO Pol 10236HD 6735
90228 7590 03/01/2017
TP & T GROT TP T T P
EXAMINER
8230 Leesburg Pike
Suite 650
BACHNER, ROBERT G
Vienna, VA 22182 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2898
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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
Ex parte SUNG YOON CHO, HAE JUNG LEE,
BYUNG SOO PARK, and EUN MI KIM
Appeal 2016-000373
Application 13/587,612
Technology Center 2800
Before MARKNAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1—8 and 17—22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed December 29,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 22, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed August 4, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief
filed October 5, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SK hynix Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000373
Application 13/587,612
The claims are directed to a three dimensional structured non-volatile
memory device and method of manufacturing the same. Spec. 12. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis to highlight key disputed limitations, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A non-volatile memory device, comprising:
a plurality of word lines stacked and having a stepwise
pattern, wherein the plurality of word lines each have a pad
region; and
a plurality of contact plugs coupled to the respective pad
regions of the word lines,
wherein a width of a pad region of a first one of the
plurality of word lines is greater than a width of a pad region of
a second word line lower than the first word line.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a): (1) claims 1—5 and 17—22 as unpatentable over Jin
(US 2009/0310415, published Dec. 17, 2009) (hereinafter “Jin”); and
(2) claims 6—8 as unpatentable over Jin in view of Wada (US 2010/0213526
Al, published Aug. 20, 2010) (“hereinafter “Wada”). Final Act. 5—22.
Appellants’ arguments focus on limitations that appear in claim 1.
Although the rejections and dependent claims 2—8 and 17—22 are presented
under separate headings, Appellants do not provide any substantively
separate arguments regarding the dependent claims, and instead rely on the
arguments presented regarding claim 1. We group the claims 1, 2, 7, and 8
together, claims 3—6 together, and claims 17 and 20 together in our
discussion below.
2
Appeal 2016-000373
Application 13/587,612
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8
The Examiner finds that Jin discloses all the limitations of claim 1,
but does not explicitly disclose “a width of a pad region of a first one of the
plurality of word lines is greater than a width of a pad region of a second
word line lower than the first word line.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner,
however, finds that paragraphs [0050] to [0058], and Figures 22 to 25 of Jin
disclose that each of the word lines can include contact portions with
varying width. Id. The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been
obvious to make the contact of one of the word lines, above another word
line larger, as disclosed by Jin.” Id. at 5—6.
Appellants argue that Jin merely discloses that the contact regions in
its memory device may have varying widths and fails to disclose or suggest
that the width of an upper region is greater than the width of a lower contact
region as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9.
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As the Examiner points out in the Answer,
Jin’s Figures 24 and 25, reproduced below, teach “a width of a pad region of
a first one of the plurality of word lines is greater than a width of a pad
region of a second word line lower than the first word line,” as recited in
claim 1. Ans. 6.
3
Appeal 2016-000373
Application 13/587,612
Fig. 24
m}
L_„
30;
,ji
-I
S?de»aSI
;sgier;
Contact region
-ID
Figure 24, above, illustrates the formation of contact portions in some
embodiments of Jin.
T7* * . n F*-”*ig.
M2
rsar&i
DO
Figure 25, above, illustrates the formation of contact portions in some
embodiments of Jin.
As shown in Figures 24 and 25 above, the width of pad region 4 of the
word line located in the middle of the arrangement is greater than the width
of pad regions 2 and 3, located on a word line below the word line with pad
region 4. Thus, as the Examiner finds, Jin teaches or suggests “a width of a
4
Appeal 2016-000373
Application 13/587,612
pad region of a first one of the plurality of word lines is greater than a width
of a pad region of a second word line lower than the first word line,” as
recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 over Jin, as well as the obviousness rejection over Jin of claims 2, 7,
and 8, which depend from claim 1.
Claims 3—6
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and requires “the plurality of word
lines form separate groups of word lines and the widths of the pad regions
for each group of the groups of word lines increase for each successive
upper group of the groups of word lines.'’'’ (emphasis added). Claims 4 and
5 include similar recitations about the widths of the pad regions being
increased for each successive upper group of the groups of word lines. See
claims 4 and 5.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and requires “an increase in the widths
of the pad regions for two successive . . . groups of word lines.”
The Examiner acknowledges that Jin does not disclose the recitations
of claims 3—6. See Final Act. 7—9 and 19. The Examiner finds, however,
that because Jin discloses that each of the word lines can include contact
widths of varying width (Jin | 50), “one of ordinary skill would [have been
motivated] to modify the size of an upper contact to be larger than a lower
contact (in groups)... for each successive upper group of the groups of
word lines ... for the benefit of placing a contact in a particular location.”
Id. at 8—9; see also id. at 7—8 and 19—20.
Appellants argue that Jin fails to disclose or suggest that pad widths in
its memory device increase in a successive or progressive manner as recited
in claims 3—6. Reply Br. 10; see also App. Br. 9 (arguing that Jin merely
5
Appeal 2016-000373
Application 13/587,612
discloses that the contact regions may have varying widths and fails to
disclose or suggest that the width of an upper region is greater than the width
of a lower contact region.).
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3—6. Although Jin teaches varying the
widths of the contact pad regions, on this record, the Examiner has not
established that Jin discloses or would have suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, to increase the widths of the pad regions for successive
groups of word lines. The Examiner does not rely on Wada to cure this
deficiency in Jin with respect to claim 6. See Final Act. 7—10. Nor has the
Examiner established on this record that varying the widths of the pad
regions of the word lines or groups of word lines would achieve a
recognized result. See Ans. 5; see also In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620
(CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result
effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before
the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of the variable may be
characterized as routine experimentation.). Accordingly, we do not sustain
the rejection of claims 3—6.
Claims 17 and 20
Each of independent claims 17 and 20 is directed to a non-volatile
memory device having a specific arrangement that includes four word lines
(claim 17) or word line groups (claim 20), where each word line includes a
pad portion, and where the width of the pad portion increases for each
successive word line. See claims 17 and 20.
As with claim 1, the Examiner finds that paragraphs [0050] to [0058],
and Figures 22 to 25 of Jin discloses each of the word lines can include
6
Appeal 2016-000373
Application 13/587,612
contact portions with varying width. Final Act. 13—16. The Examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to make the contact of one of
the word lines, above another word line [or groups of word lines] larger . . .
based on Jin’s disclosure that the width may be varied.” Id. atl4, 16.
As discussed above with respect to claims 3—6, on this record, the
Examiner has not established that Jin discloses or would have suggested, to
one of ordinary skill in the art, to increase the widths of the pad regions for
successive groups of word lines. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 17 and 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1 and 2 over Jin and claims 7 and 8 over Jin in view of
Wada. We reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 3—5,
17, and 20 over Jin and claim 6 over Jin in view of Wada.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7