Ex parte Iwanaga et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2000

08274475 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2000)

We observe that on March 13, 2000 (paper no. 27), appellant filed a1
waiver of the oral hearing set for April 7, 2000.
We note that appellants state on page 2 of the Brief that claims 122
through 23 have been canceled, but we find no evidence in the record that any
claims have been canceled.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TOSHIHIKO IWANAGA, MASUMITSU INO, KIKUO
KAISE, TAKENOBU URAZONO, and HIROYUKI IKEDA
____________
Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
____________
ON BRIEF1
____________
Before HAIRSTON, LALL, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 11 and 24. Claims 12 through 23
have been withdrawn from consideration.2
Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
2
Appellants' invention relates to a thin film
semiconductor device having a hygroscopic interlayer
insulating layer on the
active region and a cap layer on the hygroscopic layer for
blocking hydrogen diffusion. Claim 24 is illustrative of the
claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
24. A thin film semiconductor device comprising:
an insulating substrate;
a thin film transistor formed on the insulation substrate
having an active region;
a hygroscopic interlayer insulating layer formed on the
active region; and a cap layer substantially impermeable to
hydrogen formed on the interlayer insulating layer.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Blake 4,906,587 Mar. 06,
1990
Konishi et al. (Konishi) 4,943,837 Jul.
24, 1990
Claims 1 through 11 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Konishi in view of Blake.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,
mailed May 30, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper No.
Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
3
19, filed May 5, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21, filed
August 4, 1997) for appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review,
we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
11 and 24.
The only issue in this case is whether Konishi's aluminum
source and drain electrodes, 20 and 30, respectively, meet the
claimed cap layer. There are only two independent claims, 1
and 24, each of which requires that the cap layer be formed on
the hygroscopic interlayer insulating layer. Further, the cap
layer is "for blocking hydrogen diffusion" (for claim 1) or is
"substantially impermeable to hydrogen" (for claim 24).
Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
4
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that elements 20
and 30 of Konishi "meet the claim limitation of being on the
insulating film and they also do not allow hydrogen
diffusion." Konishi's electrodes 20 and 30 are formed of an
aluminum film that is 6000 to 8000 D in thickness. Appellants
disclose (specification, page 13) that the capping layer in
the first embodiment is an aluminum film deposited to "a
thickness of 300nm [or 3000 D] or more to impart a
sufficiently high preventive
function against the diffusion of hydrogen." Since Konishi's
electrodes are aluminum with more than the disclosed
thickness, we agree that they must block hydrogen diffusion
and be impermeable to hydrogen.
However, we cannot agree that elements 20 and 30 are a
"cap layer ... formed on the interlayer insulating layer."
Neither of electrodes 20 and 30 is really a layer, nor is
either formed on the interlayer insulating layer
(phosphosilicate glass layer 7). The source and drain
electrodes do overlap layer 7 at their edges, but a slight
Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
5
overlap is insufficient to constitute being "on" the
interlayer insulating layer. Accordingly, Konishi does not
meet all of the limitations of the independent claims.
We note that the rejection also relies upon Blake.
However, Blake does not relate to hydrogenation and does not
teach forming a cap layer on an interlayer insulating layer.
Thus, the examiner cited Blake merely for the material of the
source and drain electrodes. Consequently, Blake does not
cure the deficiencies of Konishi. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 11 and
24.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
6
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No. 1997-4035
Application No. 08/274,475
7
HILL, STEADMAN AND SIMPSON
85TH FLOOR SEARS TOWER
CHICAGO, IL 60606