11175677 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2010)

Ex Parte Forbes

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 22, 2010

11175677 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte LEONARD FORBES ____________ Appeal 2009-004738 Application 11/175,677 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: March 22, 2010 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, THOMAS S. HAHN, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-7, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2009-004738 Application 11/175,677 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to semiconductor memory arrays including access transistors having ultra-thin bodies (Spec. ¶ [0001]). According to Appellant, the access transistor is a field effect transistor having a vertical annular semiconductive transistor body with a surround gate formed around the annular transistor body (spec. ¶ [0007]). Independent Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A transistor comprising: a vertical annular semiconductive transistor body; a surround gate structure formed around the annular transistor body; a source region formed adjacent a lower portion of the body; and a drain region formed adjacent an upper portion of the body such that the transistor defines a field effect transistor. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Forbes US 6,049,106 Apr. 11, 2000 Shinji Miyano (Miyano), Numerical Analysis of a Cylindrical Thin- Pillar Transistor (CYNTHIA), IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, Vol. 39, No. 8, Aug. 1992, pp. 1876-1881. Celisa K. Date (Date), Suppression of the Floating-Body Effect Using SiGe Layers in Vertical Surrounding-Gate MOSFETs, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, Vol. 48, No. 12, Dec. 2001, pp. 2684-2689. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Miyano. Appeal 2009-004738 Application 11/175,677 3 Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Date. Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Date and Miyano. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Date, Miyano, and Forbes.1 Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Briefs (Appeal Brief filed Mar. 19, 2008, and Reply Brief filed Sep. 26, 2008) and the Answer (mailed Jul. 30, 2008) for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. ISSUE Appellant argues that neither Miyano nor Date anticipates Appellant’s claims because the vertical pillar disclosed in these references is a solid construction without the annular aspect recited in the claims (App. Br. 6). The Examiner responds that because the surround gate structures of Miyano and Date are annular and vertical, the semiconductive bodies disclosed in these references are also annular and vertical because the gates have the same shapes as the bodies (Ans. 8-9). Thus, Appellant’s arguments present the following issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), does either Miyano or Date anticipate the rejected claims by teaching a vertical annular semiconductive transistor body, as recited in claim 1? 1 The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph has been withdrawn by the Examiner as indicated on page 3 of the Examiner’s Answer. Appeal 2009-004738 Application 11/175,677 4 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Miyano discloses a cylindrical transistor wherein the gate surrounds a semiconductive body shown to have a solid pillar shape. (Fig. 1, p. 1876.) 2. Date discloses a vertical MOSFET including a vertical surround gate formed around a vertical semiconductive body depicted as a solid pillar shape. (Fig. 1, p. 2685.) PRINCIPLES OF LAW A rejection for anticipation requires that the four corners of a single prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). ANALYSIS As described above, the vertical transistors disclosed in both Miyano and Date include a vertical surround gate formed around a pillar-shaped semiconductive body (FF 1-2). While the gates have vertical annular shapes, the semiconductive bodies, as pointed out by Appellant (App. Br. 6), form a solid cylindrical shape. As such, we disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of the solid construction of the semiconductive bodies in Miyano and Date as the claimed vertical annular semiconductive transistor body. Appeal 2009-004738 Application 11/175,677 5 We also disagree with the Examiner’s position (Ans. 8-9) that, because the term “annular” means in a ring formation, the transistor bodies disclosed in either Miyano or Date have a vertical annular shape. As shown in Figure 1 of each reference, the semiconductor bodies form a solid cylindrical shape, instead of a ring formation. As discussed above, the only annular element is the surround gate that is positioned around the solid pillar forming the semiconductive body. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we find that neither Miyano nor Date anticipates the rejected claims by teaching a vertical annular semiconductive transistor body, as recited in claim 1. Therefore, in view of our analysis above, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claim 1, as well as the dependent claims 2-6 as anticipated by Miyano or claims 2, 5, and 6 as anticipated by Date, cannot be sustained. Additionally, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, and 7 over Date in view of Miyano or over Date in view of Miyano and Forbes as the Examiner has not identified how modifying the references would have overcome the above-noted deficiency of Miyano and Date related to a vertical annular semiconductive transistor body. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-7 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2009-004738 Application 11/175,677 6 tkl KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 2040 MAIN STREET FOURTEENTH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92614