Ex Parte Hubner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2004

09685362 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HOLGER HUBNER and THOMAS ROHR

____________

Appeal No. 2004-1777
Application No. 09/685,362

____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before WALTZ, TIMM and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter in
this appeal and is set forth below:
1. A semiconductor component, comprising:
a first metal layer forming a first metal area
and a second metal area electrically insulated from
one another;
a dielectric layer;
Appeal No. 2004-1777
Application No. 09/685,362

2
a second metal layer produced separately from
said first metal layer and forming a third metal area
insulated from said first metal layer by an
interposition of said dielectric layer, and said third
metal area together with said dielectric layer and
said first metal area forms a memory element, said
second metal layer further forming a fourth metal area
which together with said second metal area forms a
contact area used to make contact with said second
metal layer and said second metal layer having an
electrically conductive connection between said third
metal area and said fourth metal area;
an insulation layer covering said contact area
and said memory element and having at least one
opening formed therein and leading to said contact
area; and
an electrically conductive material filling said
opening for making contact with said second metal
layer.

Claims 1-4 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Ryan in view of Leung.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Leung et al. (Leung) 5,563,762 October 8, 1996
Ryan et al. (Ryan) 5,972,788 October 26, 1999
We have carefully reviewed appellants’ brief and reply
brief, and the examiner’s answer. This review has led us to
conclude that the examiner’s rejection is not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.

OPINION
We determine that the examiner’s rejection, as set forth on
pages 3-6 of the answer, does not set forth a prima facie case
of obviousness for the following reasons.
As pointed out by appellants, Ryan discloses a capacitor
that is contacted from above, whereas Leung discloses a
Appeal No. 2004-1777
Application No. 09/685,362

3
capacitor that is contacted from below. Reply brief, page 5.
Leung describes this configuration as an “inverted” form of a
capacitor. See col. 8, lines 37-42 of Leung.
The examiner’s explanation in his rejection does not
rectify these disparate structures. The examiner’s motivation
for combining is “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the capacitor and contact structure of Ryan by forming the
connection between the capacitor top electrode and contact
portion simultaneously as taught by Leung to simplify the
interconnection process and form a capacitor structure above the
semiconductor without disrupting routing of the underlying
interconnect metallization.” Answer, page 5. Yet, the examiner
does not explain how this simplification would occur in Ryan
when Ryan’s disclosure is a capacitor that is contacted from
above, as shown in Figure 3. In the paragraph bridging pages 8
and 9 of the answer, the examiner alleges that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill would apply this teaching to reduce the number of
connections and vias to the interconnect and the capacitor of
Ryan thus reducing processing steps and manufacturing costs”.
Yet, the examiner does not support this conclusory statement by
facts or technical explanation. For example, the examiner has
not explained how to alter the process in Ryan, and when
altering the process of Ryan, what steps would be different
which would in fact reduce the process steps and manufacturing
cost. In fact, it appears to us that the modification of Ryan
as suggested by the examiner goes against the contact from above
configuration and would in fact complicate the process rather
than simplify it. Therefore, we determine that the examiner’s
conclusion/allegation is unsubstantiated.
Appeal No. 2004-1777
Application No. 09/685,362

4
We further point out that the examiner does not explain why
one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to
modify the configuration as set forth in Figure 3 of Ryan such
that the third metal area and fourth metal area include a
conductive connection between them.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the rejection.

REVERSED

THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
CATHERINE TIMM ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/sld
Appeal No. 2004-1777
Application No. 09/685,362

5
LERNER AND GREENBERG, PA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480