Ex Parte Houston et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201712479266 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/479,266 06/05/2009 Theodore W. Houston TI-66545 1104 23494 7590 11/02/2017 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER CHEN, DAVID Z ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2815 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2017 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THEODORE W. HOUSTON, THOMAS J. ATON, and SCOTT W. JESSEN Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARKNAGUMO, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 We cite to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed June 5, 2009; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated July 30, 2014; Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.”) dated August 14, 2014; and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated May 6, 2015. 2 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to integrated circuits containing static random access memory cells (SRAMs). Spec. 11. Particularly, Appellants describe an SRAM cell including T-shaped contacts, each of which “provides an electrical connection between a drain node of a driver transistor and a drain node of a corresponding load transistor in one inverter and a gate of an opposite inverter, where the two inverters form cross- coupled inverters in the SRAM cell.” Spec. 111. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows: 1. An integrated circuit containing an array of Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) cells, each said SRAM cell comprising: a first driver transistor of said SRAM cell of said array within said integrated circuit, said first driver transistor having a drain node and a channel region; a first load transistor, said first load transistor having a drain node and a channel region; a first inverter gate, said first inverter gate overlapping said channel region of said first driver transistor and overlapping said channel region of said first load transistor; a second driver transistor, said second driver transistor having a drain node and a channel region; a second load transistor, said second load transistor having a drain node and a channel region; a second inverter gate, said second inverter gate overlapping said channel region of said second driver transistor and overlapping said channel region of said second load transistor; a first T-shaped contact, further including: a first drain connecting segment, said first drain connecting segment overlapping said drain node of said first driver transistor and overlapping said drain node of said first load transistor; and 2 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 a first gate connecting segment located substantially laterally adjacent to said first drain connecting segment, said first gate connecting segment overlapping said second inverter gate and intersecting said first drain connecting segment; and a second T-shaped contact, further including: a second drain connecting segment, said second drain connecting segment overlapping said drain node of said second driver transistor and overlapping said drain node of said second load transistor; and a second gate connecting segment located substantially laterally adjacent to said second drain connecting segment, said second gate connecting segment overlapping said first inverter gate and intersecting said second drain connecting segment; wherein an end of said first drain connecting segment overlapping said drain node of said first load transistor extends beyond an inner comer of said intersection of said first drain connecting segment with said first gate connecting segment by a distance greater than 10 percent of an end separation distance between ends of said first drain connecting segment and said second drain connecting segment; further wherein an end of said second drain connecting segment overlapping said drain node of said second load transistor extends beyond an inner comer of said intersection of said second drain connecting segment with said second gate connecting segment by a distance greater than 10 percent of said end separation distance between said ends of said first drain connecting segment and said second drain connecting segment. 3 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:3 I. Claims 1—3 and 6—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Igarashi.4 II. Claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Igarashi and Tsuboi.5 DISCUSSION Rejection I Appellants separately argue each of the rejected claims. See Br. 21— 39. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Igarashi describes an integrated circuit containing an array of SRAM cells that meet all of the elements recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3—5. Particularly, with reference to Igarashi’s Figure 3, the Examiner finds that Igarashi’s depicted device includes first and second driver transistors (NQ1, NQ2), first and second load transistors (PQ1, PQ2), first and second inverter gates (SGI, SG4), a first T-shaped contact including a drain connecting segment (Ml) and a gate connecting segment 3 Final Act. 3—13. The Examiner additionally finds that claims 1—10 are “patentably indistinct from claims of Application No. 13/044,628, 13/044,644, and 13/481,378.” Id. at 2. The Examiner presents this finding under the heading, “Double Patenting,” but does not otherwise articulate a formal double-patenting rejection. Id. at 2—3; see also Ans. 25—26. Because each of the above-listed applications is abandoned, we consider any underlying double-patenting issue to be moot. 4 US 2008/0042218 Al, published February 21, 2008 (“Igarashi”). 5 US 2007/0080423 Al, published April 12, 2007 (“Tsuboi”). 4 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 (SCT1), and a second T-shaped contact including a drain connecting segment (M2) and a gate connecting segment (SCT2). Id. at 3^4. Igarashi’s Figure 3 is reproduced below. FIG. 3 Figure 3 depicts a plane layout of a memory cell. Igarashi 120. Appellants argue that Igarashi’s “SCT1 belongs to PQ2 instead of contact SCT1 belonging to PQ1 as asserted in the Office Action.” Br. 22. Appellants further argue that the Examiner improperly relies on Igarashi’s SCT1 to meet the separately recited first load transistor drain node and first gate connecting segment. Id. at 22—23. These arguments are not persuasive. Appellants do not explain why interpreting Igarashi’s SCT1 element as “belonging to” either load transistor PQ1 or load transistor PQ2 is relevant to any aspect of the claim. Notably, Appellants’ claim 1 recites the first gate connecting segment as a component of the first T-shaped contact of the claimed integrated circuit, not as a component of either the first or second 5 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 load transistor. Appellants’ argument that Igarashi’s SCT1 element cannot serve as both a first load transistor drain node and a first gate connecting segment also is not persuasive. As the Examiner explains, the recited first load transistor drain node is found to be met by the active region of the first load transistor on which the SCT1 element is located, not the SCT1 element itself. Ans. 8. Appellants contend that Igarashi’s SCT1 element “is not substantially laterally adjacent to element Ml” because, according to Appellants, SCT1 “underlies” Ml. Br. 23. However, Appellants fail to explain why such an overlying arrangement would preclude Igarashi’s T-shaped contact segments from being substantially laterally adjacent to one another. Nor do Appellants point to any disclosure in the Specification which would convey a contrary or narrower meaning of the phrase, “substantially laterally adjacent.” Igarashi’s Figure 3 shows the relied upon gate-connecting segment (SCT1) extending in a substantially laterally adjacent orientation relative to the corresponding drain-connecting segment (Ml). Appellants do not persuade us of reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that Igarashi’s SCT1/M1 arrangement satisfies the recitation of being substantially laterally adjacent. Appellants repeat essentially these same arguments in connection with the second T-shaped contact, which the Examiner finds to be met by Igarashi’s M2/SCT2 element. Br. 23—25. We find these arguments unpersuasive for the reasons given above with regard to the first T-shaped contact. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain Rejection I as applied to claim 1. 6 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 Claims 2, 6, and 7 Appellants separately present arguments directed toward each of claims 2, 6, and 7 that reiterate the same arguments presented in connection with claim 1. Br. 25—28, 30-37. We find these arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth above in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, Rejection I as applied to claims 2, 6, and 7 also is sustained. Claims 3 and 8 Each of claims 3 and 8 recites “an outer edge of said channel region of said first passgate transistor extends beyond an outer edge of said channel region of said first driver transistor by a distance greater than half said distance by which said end of said first drain connecting segment extends beyond said first gate connecting segment.” Appellants’ sole argument addressing the Examiner’s rejection of these claims is that Igarashi “cannot teach any distance ‘by which the end of the first drain connecting segment extends beyond the first gate connecting segment’ because Igarashi et al. does not teach a first drain connecting segment nor a first gate connecting segment.” Br. 29, 38 (referring to arguments presented in connection to claim 1). Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s identification of Igarashi’s drain connecting segment (Ml) and gate connecting segment (SCT1) in their arguments presented in connection with claim 1 for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error based on those same arguments in connection with claims 3 and 8. Rejection I as applied to each of claims 3 and 8 also is sustained. 7 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 Rejection II Each of claims 4 and 9 requires, inter alia, that each T-shaped contact includes a gate connecting segment that is inclined a distance which is greater than half the distance by which the end of the drain connecting segment “extends beyond” the gate connecting segment. Claims 5 and 10 depend from claims 4 and 9, respectively. Thus, at a minimum, each of these claims requires that the drain connecting segment extends some distance beyond the gate connecting segment in each of the T-shaped contacts. Consistent with that recitation, independent claims 1 and 6 also require that an end of each drain connecting segment “extends beyond an inner comer of an intersection” of the corresponding drain and gate connecting segments. The recitation of the first and second contacts being “T-shaped” in each of the independent claims also implies that the drain connecting segment extends at least some distance beyond the gate connecting segment. Acknowledging that Igarashi fails to disclose an inclined gate connecting segment, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would have had a reason to substitute Tsuboi’s inclined connector, represented by reference numerals 3a and 3b in Tsuboi’s Figure 1A. Final Act. 10-13. We reproduce Tsuboi’s Figure 1A below. 8 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 FIG. 1A Figure 1A is a plane view of a semiconductor device. Tsuboi 114. Appellants argue, and we agree, that Tsuboi’s element 3a, the purported drain connecting segment, does not extend beyond the inner intersection of element 3a with element 3b, the purported gate connecting segment. Br. 43, 51. The Examiner fails to articulate a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Tsuboi’s contact such that the drain connecting segment 3a would extend some distance beyond the inclined distance of the gate connecting segment 3b. Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness over the cited prior art. For that reason, we do not sustain Rejection II. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3 and 6—8 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 is reversed. 9 Appeal 2015-007113 Application 12/479,266 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation