Ex Parte Gleason

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 2009

10690319 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JEFFERY N. GLEASON
____________

Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: August 10, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and KEVIN F.
TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.

TURNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to processes related to the
formation of a metal feature on an intermediate structure of a semiconductor
device (Spec. ¶ [0002]). The instant claims are directed to that intermediate
structure, having at least one exposed open fuse structure and a metal feature
on an exposed metal structure.
Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319

2
Independent claim 1, the only independent claim, is illustrative of the
invention and reads as follows:

1. An intermediate structure of a semiconductor device
comprising:

at least one exposed open fuse structure on the intermediate
structure of the semiconductor device; and

a metal feature on an exposed metal structure of the
intermediate structure of the semiconductor device, wherein a
metal of the metal feature is present on the exposed metal
structure and is not present on the at least one exposed open
fuse structure.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Boleky US 3,699,395 Oct. 17, 1972
Sekiguchi US 6,008,124 Dec. 28, 1999

Claims 1 and 3-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Boleky1.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Boleky, or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boleky.

ISSUES
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejections are in error.
Appellant argues the strips (18, 18’) cited in Boleky as disclosing “an

1 We note in passing that claim 8 requires that the intermediate structure is
“an SRAM or FLASH memory chip,” that Boleky is specifically directed to
“read-only memories,” but Appellant has not raised the same as an issue.
Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319

3
exposed metal structure” are actually silicon (App. Br. 5), and that such
semiconductor material in Boleky cannot anticipate the cited element of
claim 1 (Id.). The Examiner responds that a specific section of Boleky
teaches that the exposed layer 18 is a metal, so that Boleky’s layer 18 meets
the limitation of a “metal exposed structure,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5-
6). Appellant argues that this section of Boleky, cited for the first time in the
Answer, is an improper new ground (Reply Br. 2-3), and that the cited
section of Boleky is most likely a typographical error (Reply Br. 4).
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made
but chose not to make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Thus, the issues arising from the respective positions of Appellant and
the Examiner are:
(i) Has Appellant shown reversible error in that Boleky fails to teach
“an exposed metal surface” as recited in claim 1?
(ii) Has Appellant shown reversible error in that Boleky fails to teach
or suggest all of the elements of claim 2 to render that claim anticipated or
obvious?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The instant Specification details an intermediate structure of the
semiconductor device may include first and second exposed metal
structures, where the first is a surface upon which formation of the metal
feature occurs and the second is a smaller structure upon which formation of
the metal feature is not desired. In one embodiment the first exposed metal
Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319

4
structure is a metal bond pad, or interconnect pad, and the second exposed
metal structure is an opened fuse. (Spec. ¶ [0022]).
2. Boleky discloses a read-only memory device where semiconductor
strips (18) are formed on the surface (14) of a substrate (12) through
patterning, where diodes (16) are formed from portions of those
semiconductor strips. A layer of insulating material (28) is provided so that
the metal strips (32) can cross the semiconductor strips, and connect with the
bonding pads (26). The metal connections also includes fuses (42) where
particular fuses may be blown to disconnect particular diodes from the
matrix (Col. 2, l. 10 - col. 3, l. 58; Figs. 1 & 2, elements 12, 14, 16, 18, 18′,
26, 32, 42, 52)
3. Boleky recites that “[o]wing to the high doping of the
semiconductor elements 42, the contacts of the elements 42 with the metal
strips 18 and the metal portions 52 of the diodes 16 are non-rectifying” (Col.
5, ll. 44-47). All other recitations of “18” in Boleky refer to that element as
being made from a semiconductor material, namely silicon.
4. Sekiguchi discloses processes for forming a semiconductor device
having a silicide film, where the reference provides: “even when carrying
out a NH3 plasma treatment, the effect of the present invention can be
expected as long as formation conditions capable of forming a barrier
compound layer of a compound of nitrogen, oxygen, metal such as titanium
and silicon, are used.” (Col. 16, l. 64 – col. 17, l. 2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319

5
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion
of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness . . .
. [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,
for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their
terms reasonably allow. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When the specification states the meaning that a term
in the claim is intended to have, the claim is examined using that meaning,
in order to achieve a complete exploration of the applicant's invention and its
relation to the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“Even when guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format, the
specification may define claim terms by implication such that the meaning
may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the strips (18, 18’) cited in Boleky as disclosing “an
exposed metal structure” (Ans. 3) are strips of semiconductor material,
Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319

6
specifically N-type silicon (App. Br. 5). As such, Appellant argues that
although the Examiner has indicated that silicon is a metal, the
semiconductor material in Boleky cannot anticipate the cited element of
claim 1 (Id.). The Examiner responds that a specific section of Boleky
teaches that the exposed layer 18 is a metal (FF 3), so that Boleky’s layer 18
meets the limitation of a “metal exposed structure,” as recited in claim 1
(Ans. 5-6).
Appellant argues that this section of Boleky, cited for the first time in
the Answer, is an improper new ground (Reply Br. 2-3). We do not agree
that this is a new ground of rejection, although the Examiner’s interpretation
of the reference has apparently changed. However, we agree with Appellant
that the cited section of Boleky is most likely a typographical error (Reply
Br. 4). Everywhere else in Boleky the “strips 18” are referred to as formed
from semiconductor material and the metal strips are referenced as “32”
(Reply Br. 7-9). We agree with Appellant that the use in Boleky of “metal
strips 18” is inconsistent with the other portions of Boleky (Reply Br. 5-6),
and we do not take the cited portion of Boleky as anticipatory of the
limitation of a “metal exposed structure,” recited in claim 1. As such, we
find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3-8 as being
anticipated by Boleky.
The Examiner also argues that Appellant fails to recite any specific
metal material for the metal exposed structure in the claim, interprets
“metal” to be a conductor, and argues that silicon has similar properties to
metal and is more electropositive than lead (Ans. 6). Appellant responds
that the Examiner has ignored other properties of metals, that the Examiner
has acknowledged that silicon is like metal and thus cannot be metal, and
Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319

7
that silicon generally known to be a semiconductor (Reply Br. 10-11). We
agree with Appellant in that the recitation of “metal” in claim 1 should be
construed to mean “metal.” Construing that claim element to mean
“conductor” does not fall within the confines of the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim 1. The fact that Appellant has not recited any specific
metal material is immaterial because the meaning of the term “metal,” at
least within the context of the instant claims, is indisputable.
The Examiner also relies upon a section of Sekiguchi (FF 4) to
buttress the Examiner’s claim that “an artisan in the art considers the layer
18 of Boleky to be a metal material” (Final Office Action 4). As Appellant
has pointed out (App. Br. 6-7), the bulk of Sekiguchi refers to the barrier
compound layer as having four elements, where it is suggested that the
referenced section of Sekiguchi intended to refer to of nitrogen, oxygen, a
metal such as titanium, and silicon. We agree and find that Sekiguchi does
not support the Examiner’s hypothesis that silicon is a metal.
With respect to the rejection of claim 2, even if the subject matter of
that claim were anticipated or rendered obvious over Boleky, Boleky still
fails to teach or suggest all of the elements of claim 1, from which claim 2
depends. As such, we find the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 to be in error
as well.

CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 3-8 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Boleky, and rejecting claim 2 in the alternative
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b), 103(a) as being anticipated by or unpatentable
over Boleky, is reversed.
Appeal 2009-001535
Application 10/690,319

8

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 before us on appeal is
REVERSED.

REVERSED

saw

TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110