Ex Parte Esmark et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201612511835 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/511,835 0712912009 81722 7590 09/21/2016 Viering, Jentschura & Partner mbB - Inf c/o 3770 Highland Ave. Suite 203 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kai Esmark 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P47034US 4571 EXAMINER PHAM,HOAIV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2016 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): patint@vjp.de vjp-us@vjp.de PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAI ESMARK, HARALD GOSSNER, CHRISTIAN RUSS, and JENS SCHNEIDER Appeal2015-004520 Application 12/511,835 Technology Center 2800 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9-14 and 17-28. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Infineon Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2015-004520 Application 12/511,835 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants describe the present invention as relating to an electrostatic discharge (ESD) circuit with an BSD-resistant capacitor. Spec. i-f 3. Claim 9, 1 7, and 21 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 9, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 9. An integrated circuit arrangement comprising: two operating potential lines that carry potentials that are different from one another during operation of the circuit arrangement and a capacitor connected between the operating potential lines, said capacitor including: a basic doping region doped in accordance with a basic doping type; at least one doped connection region of a same basic doping type as the basic doping region, wherein a dopant concentration of the at least one doped connection region is higher than a dopant concentration in the basic doping region; at least one extension region of the same basic doping type as the basic doping region immediately adjacent to the at least one doped connection region, wherein the at least one extension region has a dopant concentration that is less than the dopant concentration of the at least one doped connection region and higher than the dopant concentration of the basic doping region; an electrode region arranged at a distance from the basic doping region; an electrically conducting region arranged on the electrode region; and a dielectric arranged between the electrode region and the basic doping region, the dielectric comprising a thin central region and a thicker edge region, the thicker edge region being arranged between the electrode region and at least a portion of the at least one extension region. 2 Appeal2015-004520 Application 12/511,835 Appeal Br.2 19 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Yoo et al. US 6,544,845 B2 Apr. 8, 2003 (hereinafter "Yoo") Wu et al. US 6,949 ,806 B2 Sept. 27, 2005 (hereinafter "Wu') Kikuchi et al. JP 10-163421 June 19, 1998 (hereinafter "Kikuchi") On appeal, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 9-12, 14, and 17-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Yoo and Wu. Final Act. 2. As a separate ground of rejection, the Examiner also maintains the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Yoo and Wu. Final Act. 11; see also Appeal Br. 10. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections")). After having 2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed July 11, 2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed March 13, 2014 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed June 6, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed July 16, 2014 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal2015-004520 Application 12/511,835 considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner's§ 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner rejects claims 9-12, 14, and 17-28 as obvious over Kikuchi in view of Yoo and Wu. Final Act. 2. Appellants do not separately argue 10-12, 14 and 17-28. We therefore limit our discussion to claim 9. Claims 10-12, 14 and 17-28 stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Appellants argue that none of the cited references disclose "a dielectric arranged between the electrode region and the basic doping region, the dielectric comprising a thin central region and a ticker edge region, the thicker edge region being arranged between the electrode region and at least a portion of the at least one extension region." Appeal Br. 14. This argument does not fairly address the thrust of the Examiner's rejection. "[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). "Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual findings that are reviewed for substantial evidence, including what a reference teaches and whether there would have been sufficient motivation to combine the prior art." See In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner relies on Kikuchi as the primary reference and finds that it teaches an electrode region and extension region. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Kikuchi teaches a dielectric 4 Appeal2015-004520 Application 12/511,835 having a thicker edge region. Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 3; Yoo Fig. 6 (depicting "bird's beak area" at 414 ). The Examiner also finds that introduction of the thicker edge region of Yoo into Kikuchi would "reduce an overlap capacitance between the electrode region (gate electrode region) and the doped connection region (doped drain region)." Final Act. 3; Ans. 3; see also Yoo 7:45-52 (explaining that bird's beak area permits reducing overlap capacitance). Appellants do not present factual evidence or arguments to persuasively rebut any of these findings. We therefore agree with the Examiner that a preponderance of the evidence supports these findings of fact. Moreover, Appellants do not persuasively argue that the Examiner erred by combining the Kikuchi and Yoo references. In the October 11, 2013, Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review (hereinafter, "Pre-Appeal Br."), which Appellants incorporate by reference into the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 14),3 Appellants argue that "it would not be obvious to provide a thicker dielectric 16 above at least portion of the diffusion region 15 of Kikuchi." Pre-Appeal Br. 4. However, Appellants present no reasoning or facts rebutting the Examiner's stated rationale for why it would have been obvious to make exactly this combination (Final Act. 3). Rather, Appellants again focus on the shortcomings of Yoo standing alone rather than arguing against the combination. Pre-Appeal Br. 2-5. The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's obviousness conclusion based upon the combination of references. 3 We do not reach a determination as to whether or not incorporation of such arguments by reference is procedurally proper. 5 Appeal2015-004520 Application 12/511,835 We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-12, 14, and 17-28. The Examiner also rejects claim 13 as obvious over Kikuchi in view of Yoo and Wu. Final Act. 11. Appellants do not separately address the patentability of claim 13. We therefore, for the reasons explained above, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 9-14 and 17-28. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation