Ex Parte IYER

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2003

09059865 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2003)

1
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written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RAVI IYER
____________
Appeal No. 2001-0336
Application No. 09/059,865
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before SMITH, FLEMING, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellant has made two requests for rehearing, the first is
Paper No. 19 and the second is Paper No. 21. We will answer both
in this decision. In the first request, Appellant requests that
we reconsider our decision mailed on September 25, 2002, with
respect to affirming the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2001-0336
Application No. 09/059,865
2
Appellant argues on pages 1 through 5 of the request that
the Board held that the term "stringer" means undesirable
residual non-dielectric material in accordance with the meaning
found in the specification and in accordance with the manner in
which the term is commonly understood by those of ordinary skill
in the art of semiconductor fabrication. Appellant points to
page 13, line 29 to page 14, line 2 of the specification which
describes stringers as being undesirable because they cause
problems, such as gate leakage for example. Appellant directs
the Board to page 22 of Plasma Processing Material; Scientific
Opportunities and Technological Challenges, Exhibit 1, which
describes "stringer" residue as being undesirable residual non-
dielectric material.
Upon our careful review of the specification and extrinsic
evidence now made of record, we agree with the Appellant that the
proper meaning of the claimed term "stringer" is an undesirable
residual non-dielectric material. We note that claim 12 requires
the limitation "removing a portion of the layer of non-dielectric
material, leaving stringers of the non-dielectric material in the
creases." We find that the scope of this limitation is removing
a portion of the layer of non-dielectric material, leaving an
undesirable residual non-dielectric material in the creases.
Appeal No. 2001-0336
Application No. 09/059,865
3
Claims 13 through 17 also recite this limitation due to their
dependence on claim 12.
As we have found on page 14 of our opinion, claim 18
includes the limitation of "removing a portion of the non-
dielectric material from the creases using a given method, the
given method leaving undesirable residual non-dielectric material
in some of the creases. Claims 19 through 23 also recite this
limitation due to their dependence on claim 18.
Appellant argues that Kim's silicon spacer is not an
undesirable residual non-dielectric material as required by
Appellant's claims. Appellant points out that in Kim's first
embodiment of Figure 1, the silicon spacer 18 is actually present
in the final device and used to fill part of the contact hole.
Appellant points out that even in Kim's second embodiment of
Figure 2, if it were not for the silicon spacer 18, the thermal
oxide spacer 19 could not be formed. Appellant argues in both
embodiments, the silicon spacer 18 is purposely created, useful,
desirable, and necessary for successful implementation of the Kim
device. See page 7 of the request.
We agree that Kim's spacer 18 cannot read on Appellant's
claimed undesirable residual non-dielectric material. Therefore,
Appeal No. 2001-0336
Application No. 09/059,865
4
we reverse the rejection of claims 12 through 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Appellant filed a second request for rehearing which
presents a Terminal Disclaimer, not before us at the time of our
decision. The second rehearing requests that we reconsider our
decision of the rejection under obviousness-type double patenting
in light of this Terminal Disclaimer. We will not reconsider our
decision because the Board will only consider a single request
for rehearing and the Board will only consider matters that the
Board misapprehended or overlooked in rendering our decision as
per 37 CFR § 1.197(b). The newly presented Terminal Disclaimer
was not before us when we rendered our decision and it would be
improper for us to consider it now.
Appellant's first request for rehearing is granted and the
second request is denied.
Appeal No. 2001-0336
Application No. 09/059,865
5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2001-0336
Application No. 09/059,865
6
MRF/lbg
MICHAEL G. FLETCHER
FLETCHER, YODER & VAN SOMEREN
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289