Ex Parte Desko et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2009

10981175 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN C. DESKO, ROGER A. FRATTI and
VIVIAN RYAN
____________

Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided:1 March 20, 2009
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
KAREN M. HASTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1 through 20, all of the claims pending in
the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal is directed to “[improved] lateral double
diffused MOS (LDMOS) transistors” (Spec. 1, ll. 4-5). According to the
Specification, conventional LDMOS transistors have “elongated gate and
drain elements… formed in a comb configuration with the combs facing and
the teeth, referred here and below as fingers, interleaved” (Spec. 1, ll. 17-
29). The Specification, at pages 4 through 7, defines the comb
configurations of the elongated gate (33 and 32) and drain elements (34 and
31) as those shown in Figure 2 reproduced below:

The improved LDMOS transistors provide at least one cross connect
(36 or 37) to the drain elements in a comb configuration to interconnect the
fingers (teeth) to minimize “the likelihood of mechanical failure of comb
electrode geometries” (Spec. 2, l. 15). The drain elements in a comb
configuration with cross connects (36 and 37) are shown in Figure 3
reproduced below:
2
Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175

Details of the improved LDMOS transistors are recited in
representative claims 1 and 12 which read as follows:
1. An MOS device comprising:
a. a substrate,

b. source and drain regions formed in the substrate,

c. MOS gates formed on the substrate,

d. a lower interconnect level on the substrate,

e. an MOS gate electrode in the lower interconnect level for
interconnecting the MOS gates, the MOS gate electrode having
a comb structure with a gate rail and a plurality of gate
electrode fingers extending from the gate rail,

f. an upper interconnect level,

g. a drain electrode in the upper interconnect level for
interconnecting the drain regions, the drain electrode having a
comb structure with a drain rail and plurality of drain electrode
fingers extending from the drain rail,

h. at least one cross-connect spaced from the drain rail and
connecting the drain electrode fingers.

12. Method for making an MOS device comprising the steps of:

a. providing a substrate,

3
Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175

b. forming source and drain regions in the substrate,

c. forming MOS gates on the substrate,

d. forming an MOS gate electrode on the substrate for
interconnecting the MOS gates, the MOS gate electrode having
a comb structure with a gate rail and a plurality of gate
electrode fingers extending from the gate rail,

f. deposition at least one interlevel dielectric layer on the MOS
gate electrode,

g. forming a drain electrode on the interlevel dielectric layer,
the drain electrode having a comb structure with a drain rail and
plurality of drain electrode fingers extending from the drain rail,
and having at least one cross-connect spaced from the drain rail
and connecting the drain electrode fingers.

As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner has proffered the following prior art references:
Fitch US 5,510,645 Apr. 23, 1996
Masuda US 2003/0136984 A1 Jul. 24, 2003
Appellants’ admission at pages 3 through 6 of the Specification
(hereinafter referred to as “the admitted prior art”).

The Examiner has finally rejected the claims on appeal as follows:
1) Claims 1 through 5, 7, 10 through 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the teachings of Masuda;
2) Claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
teachings of Masuda;
3) Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Masuda and the admitted prior art; and
4
Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175

4) Claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Masuda and Fitch.

ISSUE
The Examiner’s §§ 102(b) and 103(a) rejections are based on a
finding that Masuda teaches MOS gate and drain electrodes in the form of
comb structures with at least one cross connect interconnecting fingers
(teeth) of the drain electrode comb structure. Thus, the dispositive issue is:
Has the Examiner demonstrated that Masuda teaches MOS gate and drain
electrodes in the form of comb structures with at least one cross connect
interconnecting the fingers (teeth) of the drain electrode comb structure as
recited in claims 1 and 12?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Factual Findings set forth below are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Masuda teaches
an MOS device comprising a substrate (1); source and drain regions (22a-
22f and 21) formed in the substrate; MOS gates (2) on the substrate; first
interlayer (3) containing the MOS gates (corresponding to the claimed lower
interconnect level layer) on the substrate for interconnecting the MOS gates;
a second interlayer (8) (corresponding to the claimed upper interconnect
level layer); and a drain electrode (10) in the second interlayer for
interconnecting the drain region. (Compare Ans. 3-4 with App. Br. 6-12 and
Reply Br. 2-12; compare also Masuda’s Fig. 2 with Appellants’ Figs. 1 and
5).
5
Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175

2. Masuda teaches an MOS gate electrode in the form of a honeycomb
structure defining hexagonal rings (p. 2, paras. [0046] to [0049], and Fig.
1A).
3. Masuda teaches a drain electrode in the form of a honeycomb
structure defining triangle rings (p. 3, paras. [0057] and [0059] and Figs. 1A
and 4).
4. Masuda does not teach MOS gate and drain electrodes in the form of
comb structures which are defined as having “comb facing [(gate or drain
rail)] and teeth [(gate or drain fingers)] (Compare Masuda’s Figs. 1A and 4
with Spec. 1,6, and 7 and Appellants’ Fig. 2).
5. The Examiner relies on the admitted prior art and Fitch for the
features recited in dependent claims.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To properly compare a prior art reference with the claims at issue, the
claim must first be correctly construed to define the scope and meaning of
each contested limitation. Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). During examination, claim terms must be given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re ICON Health
and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); See also In re Fout,
675 F.2d 297, 300 (CCPA 1982)(“Claims must always be read in light of the
specification. Here the specification makes plain what the appellants did
and did not invent….”). “[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the
claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best
guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As pointed out in Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321:
6
Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175

The main problem with elevating the dictionary to such
prominence is that it focuses the inquiry on the abstract
meaning of words rather than on the meaning of the claim terms
within the context of the patent. Properly viewed, the “ordinary
meaning” of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan
after reading the entire patent. Yet heavy reliance on the
dictionary divorced from the intrinsic evidence risks
transforming the meaning of the claim term to the artisan into
the meaning of the term in the abstract, out of its particular
context, which is the specification.

The Specification “acts as dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in
the claims or when it defines terms by implication.” Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), anticipation is established only if “each
and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently, described in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc.
v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations, if any. Graham
v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).

ANALYSES AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
As indicated supra, the Specification, at page 1, lines 17-29, defines
the claimed comb structure as having “the combs facing and the teeth,
referred here and below as fingers…” The Specification, at pages 4 through
7, describes the claimed comb structures of the elongated gate and drain
7
Appeal 2008-3991
Application 10/981,175

electrodes as having those structures shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figures 2
and 3 show combs facing (rails) and the teeth (fingers) protruding from the
combs facing (rails). The Specification clearly states at pages 1 and 2 that
the addition of the claimed at least one cross connect shown in Figure 3 is
said to solve the mechanical problems associated with the comb structures
shown in Figure 2. The Specification expressly, or by implication, indicates
that the claimed comb structure is limited to those shown in Figures 2 and 3
and does not include the honeycomb structure having hexagonal or triangle
rings taught by Masuda. Clearly, the teeth (fingers) protruding from the
combs facing are not rings.
It follows that the Examine has not demonstrated that Masuda teaches
MOS gate and drain electrodes in the form of comb structures with at least
one cross connect interconnecting the fingers (teeth) of the drain electrode
comb structure as recited in claims 1 and 12.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

tc

LAW FIRM OF PETER V.D. WILDE
301 EAST LANDING
WILLIAMSBURG, VA 23185
8