Ex Parte Datta et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201311321128 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) 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. 11/321,128 12/28/2005 Suman Datta 42P22816 2304 45209 7590 09/26/2013 Mission/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER SMITH, BRADLEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2894 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 SUMAN DATTA, JACK T. KAVALIEROS, JUSTIN K. BRASK, BRIAN S. DOYLE and AMLAN MAJUMDAR ___________ Appeal 2011-003347 Application 11/321,128 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 Appeal 2011-003347 Application 11/321,128 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 15-20. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a “method of implanting the top transistor portion and a side transistor portion in a tri-gate transistor.” Appeal Brief 4. Illustrative Claim 15. A method for implanting the top transistor portion and a side transistor portion in a tri-gate transistor, the method comprising: directing a first beam at a first angle to form a first halo on the sides and bottom of a body, proximate to a side gate electrode and distal from a top gate electrode; and directing a second beam at a second angle, different from the first angle, to form a second halo in an upper portion of the body, proximate to the top gate electrode and distal from the side gate electrode. Rejections on Appeal Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Answer 4. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Narasimha (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0110351 A1; published June 10, 2004) and Chau (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0036126 A1; published February 26, 2004). Answer 4-5. Appeal 2011-003347 Application 11/321,128 3 Claims 15, 16, 17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over He (U.S. Patent Number 6,878,589 B1; issued April 12, 2005) and Chau. Answer 5-6. Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over He and Chau. Answer 6. Issues Do claims 15-20 fail to comply with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph? Do Narasimha and Chau, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose a method of directing a first beam at a first angle to form a first halo and directing a second beam at a second angle, different from the first angle, to form a second halo wherein both halos are proximate to a side gate electrode and distal from a top gate electrode? Do He and Chau, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose a method of directing a first beam at a first angle to form a first halo and directing a second beam at a second angle, different from the first angle, to form a second halo wherein both halos are proximate to a side gate electrode and distal from a top gate electrode? ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, rejection Appellants contend: [T]he office action dated December 31, 2009 indicates that the terms “proximate” and “distal” are indefinite because they are relative terms. While that may indeed be the case Appeal 2011-003347 Application 11/321,128 4 if these terms were used each on their own, Appellants herein assert that the current use of the terms “proximate” and “distal” together negates the indefiniteness of these terms. Specifically, “proximate to a side gate electrode and distal from a top gate electrode" could mean nothing else than closer to the side gate electrode than to the top gate electrode. Likewise, “proximate to the top gate electrode and distal from the side gate electrode” could mean nothing else than closer to the top gate electrode than to the side gate electrode. Again, the use of the allegedly otherwise indefinite terms together removes the possibility of any allegations of indefiniteness of the subject matter being claimed. As such, it is improper for the Examiner to ignore these aspects of the claim language. Appeal Brief 7-8. Claim 15 does not structurally distinguish between the proximate/distal terminologies, in other words; claim 15 does not provide a spatial comparison between the general terms. For example, claim 15 does not specify whether the “proximate” distance and the “distal” distance are larger, smaller or equal to one another. Consequently we find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because the “proximate” and “distal” terminologies are not indefinite but merely broad and are thus subject to broad interpretation. 35 U.S.C. §103(a) rejection Appellants argue Narasimha fails to disclose forming first and second halo regions proximate to different gate electrodes. Appeal Brief 8. The Examiner recognizes Narasimha’s deficiencies: Appeal 2011-003347 Application 11/321,128 5 Narasimha fails to disclose forming a tri-gate transistor. However Chau et al. disclose forming a tri-gate transistor (fig. 3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Narasimha and Chau et al. because the halo implant will lower the threshold voltage and increase the speed of the device [Narasimha 0004, 0014]. Answer 5. Appellants contend the proposed modification of Narasimha and Chau improperly changes the principle of operation of Narasimha. Appeal Brief 9. Appellants contend: Narashima [sic] does disclose forming a first halo region proximate to a channel region (e.g., proximate to a gate electrode) and a second halo region distal from the channel region (e.g., distal from the gate electrode). This arrangement can only work for a planar transistor. On the other hand, Chau discloses a non-planar transistor. If the halo regions of Narashima [sic] were included in the non- planar transistor of Chau, then both halo regions would be proximate to a gate electrode of the non-planar transistor of Chau (i.e., one proximate to the top gate electrode of Chau and one proximate to the side gate electrode of Chau). However, as described above, Narashima [sic] requires that one of the halo regions be distal from any gate electrode in order to achieve the results alleged in Narashima [sic]. Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner finds that tri-gate transistors operate similar to planar transistors with tri-gate transistors having more contact with the Appeal 2011-003347 Application 11/321,128 6 semiconductor body and gate than planar transistors. Answer 10. The Examiner further finds: [A]ppellant alleges “If the halo regions of Narasimha were included in the non-planar transistor of Chau, then both halo regions would be proximate to a gate electrode of the non-planar transistor of Chau (i.e., one proximate to the top gate electrode of Chau and one proximate to the side gate electrode of Chau).” However, as noted above the appellant never defines in the specification what is meant by proximate or distal. Furthermore, the combination of Narasimha and Chau would result in the claimed invention. Narasimha discloses implanting a first halo at a low angle and implanting a second halo at a high angle [0017-0019]]. Chau discloses halo implant into the silicon body (channel) of a trigate transistor [0044]. Therefore the combination of Narasimha and Chau would result in a first halo being proximate to the top gate electrode of Chau and distal a side gate electrode of Chau and second halo being proximate the side gate electrode of Chau and distal the top gate electrode of Chau. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s findings to the extent that the terminology “distal” and “proximate” are broad thus subject to a broad interpretation and consequently, the combination of Narasimha and Chau discloses the claimed invention as it is recited in claim 15. We do not find Appellants’ argument in regard to the modification of Narasimha and Chau improperly changing the principle of operation of Narasimha to be persuasive. Attorney “argument . . . cannot take the place of evidence.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie case). Therefore, we Appeal 2011-003347 Application 11/321,128 7 sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 15, as well as dependent claim 16 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 8-9. Appellants argue the modification of He by Chau is improper for at least the same reasons as the modification of Narasimha by Chau. Appeal Brief 10. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as stated above. Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 15, as well as, claims 16-20 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, is reversed. The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of 15-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation