Ex Parte Ghaida et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 201613328976 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/328,976 134359 7590 Gibb & Riley, LLC 844 West Street Suite 200 FILING DATE 12/16/2011 06/10/2016 Annapolis, MD 21401 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rani Abou Ghaida 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. A US920110322US1 1854 EXAMINER LIN,ARIC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2851 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/10/2016 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): gfsupport@gibbiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RANI ABOU GHAIDA, KANAK BEHAR! AGARWAL, LARS WOLFGANG LIEBMANN, and SANI RICHARD NASSIF 1 Appeal2015-000798 Application 13/328,976 Technology Center 2800 Before CHUNG K. PAK, WHITNEY WILSON, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20, which are all claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The Appeal Brief, filed April 4, 2014, states that the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. We note that records at the U.S. PTO indicated that the application was subsequently assigned to GlobalFoundries US 2 LLC on September 28, 2015. 2 In this opinion we refer to the Specification filed December 16, 2011 ("Spec."), the Final Action mailed October 8, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed April 4, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed August 15, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed October 10, 2014 ("Reply"). Appeal2015-000798 Application 13/328,976 STATEMENT OF CASE The claims are directed to dynamic pin access maximization in integrated circuit design for multi-patterning lithography. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer implemented method for improving pin access in a design of an integrated circuit (IC) for multi- patteming lithography (MPL ), the method comprising: placing a cell in the IC design, the cell including a pin shape configured to connect a pin of the cell to a semi- conductor component in the IC design, the cell including a coloring conflict due to the pin shape and an other shape in the cell each being colored using a first color for fabricating onto a wafer using MPL; routing, using a processor and a memory, a net to the pin shape without resolving the coloring conflict, wherein the routing routes the net using a first segment of the pin shape; and modifying the pin shape after routing to resolve the coloring conflict to result in a modified cell, wherein the modifying further increases an area of a pin shape of an unrouted pin in the modified cell. App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x.). Kahng et al. ("Kahng") Keinert et al. ("Keinert") REFERENCES US 2011/0078638 Al US 2011/0154283 Al REJECTIONS Mar. 31, 2011 June 23, 2011 Claims 1-20 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Keinert in view ofKahng. Final Act. 2; App. Br. 9. 2 Appeal2015-000798 Application 13/328,976 Appellants do not argue the separate patentability of claims 2-20 apart from claim 1 in their Appeal Brief, but state that they do not concede that the references cited by the Examiner teach or suggest other features of claim 1 and other claims not specifically addressed in the Appel Brief. App. Br. 9. However, the failure of Appellants to separately argue claims which Appellants have grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Accordingly, the claims stand or fall on the basis of the patentability of claim 1 over Keinert in view of Kahng. OPINION Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants, we find that Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's determination that the applied prior art would have rendered the subject matter recited in claim 1 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection. Appellants complain that the Examiner's rejection: (1) is "improperly formed" because allegedly no specific claims are rejected in the Final Action; (2) is conclusory because it does not contain articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support obviousness; and (3) cites references that do not teach or suggest all of the features of claim 1. App. Br. 10-12. In the Answer, the Examiner explains that the Final Action specifically pointed out where in the prior art each claim limitation is taught, 3 Appeal2015-000798 Application 13/328,976 and articulated specific reasoning for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Ans. 2--4. The Examiner notes in the Answer that "the limitations of the claims are stated in rejections essentially verbatim" in the Final Action, and "are individually addressed, so there should be no confusion or ambiguity as to which claims are at issue." Id. Nonetheless, Appellants contend in the Reply Brief that the Examiner provided "no specific citation" and/or "no articulated reasoning" for applying Keinert against claim elements. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive. The Examiner's citation to specific claim elements and specific portions of the cited references adequately identifies the claim elements that are rejected over pertinent portions of the references, in accordance with 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.104( c )(2 ). See Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 2--4. The Examiner provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (see KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)) by elaborating what Keinert shows and does not show relative to the claimed invention and how Kahng discloses what Keinert does not, and by further stating that "[i]t would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Keinert and Kahng, in order to allow use of [Kahng's multi-patterning lithography] to improve exposure quality of designs (Kahng, par. 5) [such as Keinert' s design] while maintaining [Keinert' s] design routability (Keinert, 16 par. 7)." Final Act. 3-4; see also_Ans. 3--4. The Examiner explains in the Final Action and Answer that Kahng discloses coloring conflicts in a multi -patterning lithography process that can only be resolved through 4 Appeal2015-000798 Application 13/328,976 designed change to increase the spacing between conflicted edges, such as the port trimming disclosed by Keinert, thereby providing an increased area for a pin shape of an unrouted pin. Final Act. 3; Ans. 4. In other words, "combining the teachings of Keinert and Kahng applies [Kahng's multi- patteming lithography to] the port-shaping process of Keinert .. ,that requires resolv[ing] the coloring conflicts disclosed by Kahng, which discusses the specific manner in which the teachings of the prior art references are combined to produce the claimed invention." Ans. 4. Appellants' argument that "different claims require different motivations for forming prior art combinations" is also unpersuasive, given that Appellants argue all of the claims as a group, represented by claim 1. App. Br. 11. As a final point, Appellants contend that the cited references do not teach or suggest all the features of claim 1, pointing specifically to "routing []without resolving the coloring conflict" and "modifying [] after routing." App. Br. 12. Appellants assert that the Examiner "expressly acknowledges that Keinert fails to teach or suggest, 'modifying [the pin shape] after routing."' App. Br. 12. This is a misinterpretation of the Examiner's statement, which provides, in part, that Keinert fails to disclose "modifying the pin shape after routing to resolve the coloring conflict." Final Act. 3 (emphasis added). The Examiner explains that Kahng teaches "multi-patterning lithography (MPL ), the cell including a coloring conflict due to the pin shape and another shape in the cell each being colored using a first color for fabricating onto a wafer using MPL, and modifying the pin shape after routing to resolve the coloring conflict." Final Act. 3. The Examiner also points out 5 Appeal2015-000798 Application 13/328,976 that Keinert discloses "after routing a specific net, cutting back the extended port areas of ports pertaining to this net ... thus opening resources for other nets." Id. at 5 (quoting Keinert i-f 42). As the Examiner explains, modifying pin shapes and resolving coloring conflicts were known, and the claimed invention is a textbook case of combining known elements to produce merely predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. 416 ("The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). Because Appellants have not identified reversible error in the Examiner's finding that the collective teachings of Keinert and Kahng would have suggested all elements of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is AFFIR1\1Eu. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation