Ex Parte Dyson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2013

11446016 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

____________

Ex parte MARK VICTOR DYSON, NACE ROSSI, and RANBIR SINGH

____________

Appeal 2011-006354
Application 11/446,016
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006354
Application 11/446,016

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 21-32 (App. Br. 3). Claims 1-20 were cancelled (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Exemplary claim 21 follows:
21. A semiconductor device, comprising:

a silicon substrate with a buried implant;

an insulating oxide layer over said implant with a base
interposed in said oxide layer;

a source and drain over said insulating oxide layer and
spaced apart so that a portion of each of said source and drain is
over said base;

a gate over said base and between said source and drain;

a first sidewall insulating layer on an entire edge of said
source between said source and gate and over said base;

a second sidewall insulating layer on an entire edge of
said drain between said drain and gate and over said base; and

a lead in contact with said buried implant and spaced
apart from said source, drain, and gate.

Claims 21 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kovacic (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0199153) (Ans. 4-6).
Claims 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sato (US Pat. No. 6,680,522) in view of Bresse (US Pat.
Appeal 2011-006354
Application 11/446,016

3
No. 3,538,399) and Kerr (U.S. Pat. App. Pub No. 2005/0098852) (Ans. 7-
11).
Claims 27-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sato in view of Hutcheson (US Pat. No. 7,037,799) and
Kerr (Ans. 12- 17).

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner’s factual findings as set forth in the Answer
(Ans. 3, et seq.).

ISSUES
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Kovacic discloses “a base
interposed in said oxide layer,” as recited in independent claim 21?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Sato, Bresse, and Kerr renders obvious claim 21?

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 21 and 25
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 21 as anticipated because Kovacic does not disclose a “base (212)
interposed in the insulating oxide layer (202)” (App. Br. 6). In support of
their contention, Appellants argue that Kovacic instead teaches “a base (212)
on top of and over an insulating oxide layer (202)” (id. (emphasis omitted)).
Appeal 2011-006354
Application 11/446,016

4
The Examiner found, however, that Figure 24 of Kovacic shows “an
insulating oxide layer ‘SiO2’ over said implant ‘n+’ with a base ‘Si/SiGe’
interposed in the oxide layer” (Ans. 19). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding. Our reviewing Court requires us to give a claim its broadest
reasonable meaning consistent with the Specification. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’ Specification shows a base
440 in between portions of an oxide layer 408 (FIG. 4B). Like the base of
Appellants’ Specification, the base Si/SiGe of Kovacic is shown as being in
between portions of an insulating oxide layer SiO2 (Kovacic, FIG. 24).
Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable claim construction consistent
with the Specification, Kovacic’s structure qualifies as having a base
interposed in an insulating oxide layer, as required by claim 21.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 21 as well as claim 25 dependent therefrom because Appellants did
not set forth any separate patentability arguments for claim 25 (see App. Br.
7).

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 21-26 Over Sato, Bresse and Kerr
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21-26 as
obvious because “substituting the sidewall structure of Kerr in Sato, as the
Examiner suggests, would clearly render Sato unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose” (App. Br. 10). In particular, Appellants argue that “the complex
sidewall structure of Sato allows for very little variation in electrical
characteristics even if the thicknesses of certain elements vary. As a result,
the complex sidewall structure of Sato achieves the above-noted objective of
Appeal 2011-006354
Application 11/446,016

5
Sato where ‘variation of electrical characteristic can be remarkably
suppressed’” (id.).
We note, however, that the Examiner did not suggest that the sidewall
structure of Kerr should be bodily incorporated into Sato’s structure (see
Ans. 9). Rather, the Examiner reasoned that one of ordinary skill in the art,
upon reading Kerr, would not have been discouraged from extending
sidewall insulating layers over the entire edges of the source and drain in
Sato’s structure (see Ans. 20-21). We find no error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that merely extending the sidewall insulating layers as taught by
Kerr would not render Sato’s structure unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose (see id.).
Moreover, the Examiner concluded that “[t]he fundamental intended
purpose of a sidewall insulating layer, such as that of Sato and that of Kerr
(element 170 of Figure 12), is to ensure that the source/drain electrodes do
not electrically contact the gate electrode such that an electrical connection
is made through the base” (Ans. 21-22). The Examiner also concluded that
“[t]he substitution of the sidewall structure of Kerr does not render this
intended purpose unsatisfactory” (Ans. 22). We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion and underlying findings of fact. Extending the sidewall
insulating layers as taught by Kerr (Figure 12, item 170) within Sato’s
structure would not cause the source and drain (32/33) to contact the gate
electrode to thereby make an electrical connection between the source and
drain through the gate (see Sato, Figure 11A).
Appellants also argue that Kerr teaches away from Sato because “Sato
clearly avoids bringing a silicon nitride layer in contact with an intrinsic
base” (App. Br. 11). Appellants argue that “Kerr expressly teaches that
Appeal 2011-006354
Application 11/446,016

6
silicon nitride layer 156, through silicon nitride sidewall spacer portions 170
and 180, is in contact with the base 176” (id.). But a prior art reference that
discloses a different solution does not teach away from the claimed
invention unless it also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the
claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
And Kerr does not state that its structure could not be modified to avoid
contact between a silicon nitride layer and an intrinsic base (see Sato, col.
21, l. 51 – col. 22, l. 53). Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 21 as well as claims 22-26 dependent
therefrom because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability
arguments for those dependent claims (see App. Br. 12).

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 27-32 Over Sato,
Hutcheson and Kerr
Appellants set forth the same patentability arguments for claim 27 as
they did for claim 21 (see App. Br. 12-13). For the reasons expressed supra,
therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. We will also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims dependent from claim 27 (i.e.,
claims 28-32) because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability
arguments for those claims (see id. at 13).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21 and 25 as
anticipated and claims 21-33 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
Appeal 2011-006354
Application 11/446,016

7

AFFIRMED

peb