Ex parte Houston

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 30, 2002

08862449 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 30, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte THEODORE W. HOUSTON
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-1939
Application No. 08/862,449
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative
Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31.
The disclosed invention relates to an integrated circuit
that includes a DRAM device.
Claims 1 and 25 are illustrative of the claimed
invention, and they read as follows:
Appeal No. 1999-1939
Application No. 08/862,449
2
1. An integrated circuit including a DRAM, said
DRAM comprising:
a memory array including a plurality of pass gate
transistors and a plurality of memory elements;
said pass gate transistors each having a gate
material selected to provide a substantially near mid-gap
work function or greater; and
a peripheral area including a plurality of logic
transistors.
25. An integrated circuit including a DRAM device,
said DRAM comprising:
a memory array including a plurality of pass gate
transistors and a plurality of memory elements;
said pass gate transistors comprising n-channel
devices having P+ doped polysilicon gate regions; and
a peripheral area including a plurality of logic
transistors.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Klein et al. (Klein) 3,673,471 Jun. 27,
1972
Noguchi 4,841,346 Jun. 20,
1989
Azuma et al. (Azuma) 4,888,631 Dec. 19,
1989
Lee 5,164,805 Nov. 17,
1992
Shino 5,256,894 Oct. 26,
1993
Misawa et al. (Misawa) 5,714,771 Feb. 3,
1998
(effective filing date May 15,
1989)
Appeal No. 1999-1939
Application No. 08/862,449
3
Tanigawa et al. (Tanigawa) 5,740,099 Apr. 14,
1998
(filed Feb. 5,
1996)
Masui 6-151854 May 31, 1994
(Published Japanese Patent Application)
Claims 1 through 3, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of
Lee.
Claims 1 through 4, 9 and 11 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of
Lee and Klein.
Claims 1 through 4, 8, 11, 15, 17 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa
in view of Lee, Klein, Misawa or Azuma.
Claims 1 through 4, 8, 11, 15, 17 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanigawa
in view of Lee, Klein, Misawa or Azuma in further view of
Shino, Masui and Noguchi.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 9 and 11)
and the answer (paper number 10) for the respective positions
of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 1999-1939
Application No. 08/862,449
4
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections of record.
All of the claims on appeal require that the pass gate
transistors have either “a gate material selected to provide a
substantially near mid-gap work function or greater” (claims
1 through 4, 8, 9, 11 and 15) or “n-channel devices having P+
doped polysilicon gate regions” (claims 17, 19, 21, 23, 25,
27, 29 and 31). Inasmuch as the examiner’s sole statement
(answer, page 3) that “Tanigawa teaches thin film memory cell
transistors combined with peripheral transistors” fails to
identify which of the transistors in Tanigawa are pass gate
transistors, we would have to resort to speculation as to
which transistors in Tanigawa are subject to modification
based upon the teachings of Lee, Klein, Misawa, Azuma, Shino,
Masui or Noguchi. In keeping with In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992), the
examiner, and not the Board, bears the initial burden of
establishing the prima facie unpatentability of the claimed
invention. Thus, we agree with appellant’s argument (reply
brief, page 2) that the applied references neither teach nor
would have suggested the specifically claimed pass gate
Appeal No. 1999-1939
Application No. 08/862,449
5
transistors in a DRAM.
Appeal No. 1999-1939
Application No. 08/862,449
6
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 1999-1939
Application No. 08/862,449
7
CARLTON H. HOEL
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC.
P.O. BOX 655474
M/S 219
DALLAS, TX 75265