11167647 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2011)

Ex Parte Jin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 29, 2011

11167647 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2011)

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. 11/167,647 06/27/2005 Been-Yih Jin ITL.1268US (P21417) 7653 21906 7590 07/29/2011 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. 1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 EXAMINER TRINH, MICHAEL MANH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2822 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte BEEN-YIH JIN, ROBERT S. CHAU, SUMAN DATTA, BRIAN S. DOYLE, JACK T. KAVALIEROS, JUSTIN K. BRASK, MARK L. DOCZY, MATHEW V. METZ, MARKUS KUHN, MARKO RADOSAVLIEVIC, M. REAZ SHAHEED, and PATRICK H. KEYS ____________________ Appeal 2009-011349 Application 11/167,647 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ALLEN R. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011349 Application 11/167,647 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 6 under appeal reads as follows: Claim 6. A transistor comprising: a biaxially strained silicon layer having a thermal conductivity greater than or equal to .2 W/(cm. deg.); and a source and drain in said layer. Rejections 1 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang (US 6,858,506 B2, February 22, 2005) and Goo (US 7,012,007 B1, March 14, 2006 ). The Examiner also rejected claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang and Goo. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Goo, and Perng (US 6,969,688 B2, November 29, 2005). The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chang, Goo, and Fitzgerald (US 2002/0123197 A1, September 5, 2002). 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 1-10. Appeal 2009-011349 Application 11/167,647 3 Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because: Goo teaches away from the claimed invention. In the cited passage, Goo is explicit that devices that are strained have a relatively poor conductivity of heat of approximately 0.1 W/cm-C. See column 2, line 59. The office action relies on the language in column 2, lines 45-51. But, in contrast to the material just described, this material relates to a “standard” MOSFET, as opposed to a strained FET. The fact that standard FETs have good thermal conductivity and that strained FETs have poor thermal conductivity is known. The present invention is directed to strained FETs and making them have good conductivities, contrary to the prior art. Thus, the fact that the prior art suggests that standard FETs have good conductivity and strained FETs have poor conductivity teaches away from the claimed invention (providing strained FETs with good conductivity). Therefore, the rejection should be reversed. (App. Br. 9). Issue on Appeal Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-10 as being obvious? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiners’ rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Appeal 2009-011349 Application 11/167,647 4 Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Contrary to Appellants’ argument that “Goo is explicit that devices that are strained have a relatively poor conductivity of heat of approximately 0.1 W/cm-C”, the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 7) that Goo actually teaches that it is the silicon germanium layer that is a relatively poor conductor of heat (Goo 2:56-61). Additionally, the Examiner correctly points out (Ans. 8) that Goo describes silicon as having the property of a thermal conductivity of 1.5 W/cm-C. (Goo 2:49-51). We note that, although Appellants’ claim 6 is limited to a thermal conductivity greater than or equal to .2 W/(cm. deg.), Appellants’ Specification (Paragraph bridging pages 6-7) recites a strained silicon layer as having a thermal conductivity of about 1.5 W/cm-C which corresponds to the teaching in Goo. Additionally, to the extent that Appellants have disclosed strained silicon structure, the claimed thermal conductivity property of such strained silicon does not distinguish the claimed structure from the identical prior art structure which must have the same property as claimed. Lastly, separately from our affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection we also conclude that artisans would have known the thermal conductivity properties of the claimed strained silicon structure. We note that Currie (US 6,960,781 B2) explicitly states: In an embodiment in which strained layer 18 contains substantially 100% Si, strained layer 18 may be formed in a dedicated chamber of a deposition tool that is not exposed to Ge source gases, thereby avoiding cross-contamination and improving the quality of the interface between strained layer 18 and relaxed layer 16. Furthermore, strained layer 18 may be formed from an isotopically pure precursor(s). Isotopically pure materials (e.g., Si Appeal 2009-011349 Application 11/167,647 5 or Ge) have better thermal conductivity than materials present as mixtures of atomic isotopes. Higher thermal conductivity may help dissipate heat from devices subsequently formed on strained layer 18, thereby maintaining the enhanced carrier mobilities provided by strained layer 18. (Currie 6:50-63) (emphasis added). 2 CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-10 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1-10 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED dw 2 The Currie reference was not cited during the prosecution of the application on appeal. However, Currie was cited on June 7, 2006, during the prosecution of Chui (US 7,629,603 B2), titled “Strain-Inducing Semiconductor Regions,” which shares the Assignee and a common inventor with the present appeal.