Ex Parte Harada

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 12, 2009

10397369 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte YUSUKE HARADA
____________

Appeal 2009-005474
Application 10/397,369
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: November 12, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 58-84 and 112-
114. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 58 is illustrative:

58. A semiconductor device comprising:

a first insulating film;
Appeal 2009-005474
Application 10/397,369

a first interconnection formed in the first insulating film, the
first interconnection extending in a first direction and having a first
width in a second direction that is substantially perpendicular with the
first direction;

a second insulating film overlying the first insulating film; and

a second interconnection formed in the second insulating film,
the second interconnection having an interconnection portion having a
first length in the second direction and a contact portion formed
between the interconnection portion and the first interconnection,

the contact portion having a second width in the second
direction that is smaller than the first length and larger than the first
width, and being in direct contact with an outer side surface and an
upper surface of the first interconnection,

wherein the interconnection portion and the contact portion are
a unified structure and formed of a same material.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 2-3):
Jun 5,561,327 Oct. 01, 1996
Noguchi 5,883,434 Mar. 16, 1999
Koyama 5,981,377 Nov. 09, 1999

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a semiconductor device
having first and second insulating films with first and second
interconnections formed in the respective films. The second interconnection
has an interconnection portion and a contact portion. The interconnection
portion and the contact portion are a unified structure formed of the same
material.
Appealed claims 58-84 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Noguchi. Claims 112-114 stand
2
Appeal 2009-005474
Application 10/397,369

rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being rejected over Koyama in view of
Jun.
Appellant does not present separate substantive arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, the two groups of claims separately
rejected by the Examiner stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s
reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his cogent and
thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellant. Accordingly, we
will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual finding that
Koyama, like Appellant, discloses a semiconductor device comprising first
and second insulating films having first and second interconnections formed
in the respective films, and that the second interconnection has an
interconnection portion (58) and a contact portion (55). The sole argument
advanced by Appellant is that Koyama’s interconnection and contact
portions do not meet the claim requirement for a unified structure formed of
a same material. However, although Appellant argues at page 10 of the
Brief that interconnection 58 and contact plug 55 of Koyama are formed of
Tungsten and AlCu alloy, respectively, i.e., different materials, “and thus
cannot be interpreted as the contact portion and the interconnection portion
of claim 58” (second para.), Appellant acknowledges later in the Brief that
Koyama expressly teaches that the Tungsten contact plug (55) can be
replaced by an aluminum based plug (Br. 12, second para.). Consequently,
Appellant has not refuted the Examiner’s finding that Koyama expressly
3
Appeal 2009-005474
Application 10/397,369

teaches that interconnection 58 and contact plug 55 may be formed of a
same material, as presently claimed.
The dispositive issue is whether Koyama’s interconnection 58 and
contact plug 55 meet Appellant’s claim requirement for “a unified
structure”. Appellant maintains that elements 55 and 58 of Koyama are not
a unitary structure because they are formed in different method steps and
have a backing film 57 between them. However, we fully concur with the
reasoning set forth by the Examiner in the paragraph bridging pages 14 and
15 of the Answer, which follows:
The fact that the contact 55 and interconnection 58
portions of Koyama are made in different steps is no proof
that the portions are not a unified structure. Even the fact
that there is a film 57 between the portions is no proof that
both portions fail to form a structural unit that would operate
as a single interconnection within a semiconductor device.
Having different portions that were made at different times
and using different processes do not prevent the portions
from being able to be unified into a structure. The appellants
seem to somehow imply that a unified structure specifically
means a structure having no interfaces and made in a single
method step. However, a unified structure is nothing more
than a structure that is formed or united into a whole. Things
or parts that were previously divided could be formed into a
unified structure. Narrowly defining a "unified structure" as
a structure having no interfaces and made in a single method
step would amount to importing into the claims limitations
that are not part of the claims. The language in claims 58,
67, 76, and 112-114 does not impose any specific definition
to the term "unified structure" and the application does not
provide any special meaning to the term with reasonable
clarity, deliberateness, and precision so as to give one of
ordinary skill in the art notice of the special meaning. In
fact, there is no mention whatsoever of the term "unified
structure" in the written description of the application.

4
Appeal 2009-005474
Application 10/397,369

Accordingly, since Appellant’s Specification fails to define the term “unified
structure” and, indeed, never mentions the term, we are in full agreement
with the Examiner that interconnection 58 and contact plug 55 of Koyama
meet the claim requirement for a unified structure. By way of example, we
find that two pieces of wood or plastic that are bonded or fastened together
can be fairly and reasonably characterized as a unified structure. Appellant
has presented no rebuttal to the Examiner’s reasoning.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of non-obviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC
ONE FREEDOM SQUARE
11951 FREEDOM DRIVE SUITE 1260
RESTON, VA 20190
5