Ex Parte Hirler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2012

11262483 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/262,483 10/28/2005 Franz Hirler 1890-0322 8055
7590 12/17/2012
Maginot, Moore & Beck
Bank One Tower
Suite 3000
111 Monument Circle
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
STARK, JARRETT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte FRANZ HIRLER, UWE WAHL, THORSTEN MEYER,
MICHAEL RUB, ARMIN WILLMEROTH, MARKUS SCHMITT,
CAROLIN TOLKSDORF, and CARSTEN SCHAFFER

____________________

Appeal 2010-006045
Application 11/262,483
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
JONI Y. CHANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-006045
Application 11/262,483

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6. Claims 7-24 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ claim invention relates to a lateral trench transistor.
(Abs.) Figure 3, reproduced below, shows a top view of a lateral trench
transistor in accordance with Appellants’ invention:

Figure 3 illustrates a lateral trench transistor.

The lateral trench transistor 200 has a plurality of gate trenches 6,
each having an embedded gate electrode 7. (Spec. 13:9-11.) The source
lines 12, gate lines 13, and drain lines 15 are electrically isolated from the
semiconductor body 2, and are electrically connected via contact holes to the
source regions 3, the body regions 4, the heavily doped semiconductor
regions 10, the gate electrodes 7 and the drain connection regions 14.
(Spec. 14:14-21.) Each heavily doped semiconductor region 10 is located
adjacent to a gate trench side wall 9’ and has a dopant type that is
corresponded to the dopant type of the body regions 4. (Spec. 13:19-24.)
Appeal 2010-006045
Application 11/262,483

3
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the only independent claim on appeal:
1. A lateral trench transistor having a semiconductor body, the
lateral trench transistor comprising:
a source region and a body region electrically connected
to a source contact,
a drain region electrically connected to a drain contact,
a gate trench containing a gate electrode which is isolated
from the semiconductor body, the gate electrode configured to
control lateral current flows between the source region and the
drain region along at least a first side wall of the gate trench, and
a doped semiconductor region within or adjacent to the
body region, the doped semiconductor region penetrating into a
depth of the semiconductor body from a surface of the
semiconductor body, the doped semiconductor region adjoining
the source contact such that the doped semiconductor region is
electrically connected to the source contact, and the doped
semiconductor region having a dopant type that corresponds to
a doping type of the body region, the doped semiconductor
region being more heavily doped than the body region.
(Emphasis added.)
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Panousis
1
.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To establish anticipation, “all of the elements and limitations of the
claim must be shown in a single prior reference, arranged as in the claim.”
Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2001). “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in

1
Panousis, U.S. Patent 4,835,585, May 30, 1989.
Appeal 2010-006045
Application 11/262,483

4
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Panousis does not describe a doped
semiconductor region as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5.) In particular,
Appellants allege that Panousis does not disclose a “doped semiconductor
region penetrating into a depth of the semiconductor body from a surface of
the semiconductor body” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5-6.)
The Examiner determines that Panousis teaches the disputed
limitation. (Ans. 3-5, citing figs 1 through 2a.) Figure 2A of Panousis,
reproduced below, shows a cross-section view of a trench gate transistor in
accordance with Panousis’ invention:

Figure 2A of Panousis illustrates a trench gate transistor.
The Examiner finds that the punchthrough control region 30 of
Panousis equates to the claimed doped semiconductor region. (Ans. 7.)
According to the Examiner, the punchthrough control region 30 locates
within the body region of a lateral trench transistor, and thus it inherently
penetrates into a depth of the semiconductor body. (Id.)
Appeal 2010-006045
Application 11/262,483

5
However, we agree with Appellants that the punchthrough control
region 30 does not penetrate the semiconductor body from a surface of the
semiconductor body as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 8). Panousis discloses
that the punchthrough control region 30 is buried beneath the trench gate,
rather than penetrated from a surface as recited in claim 1. (Col. 3:5-6; Fig.
2a.)
Accordingly, the Examiner’s determination that Panousis discloses the
disputed limitation of claim 1 is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. Claims 2-6 are depended from claim 1. As such, we cannot
sustain the rejections of claims 1-6 based on Panousis.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Panousis.

REVERSED

ak