Ex Parte Knoblinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11843883 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GERHARD KNOBLINGER
and FRANZ KUTTNER
____________

Appeal 2012-001856
Application 11/843,883
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001856
Application 11/843,883
2
On November 4, 2010, the Examiner finally rejected claims 16, 19-22,
27, and 28 of Application 11/843,883 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious.
The Examiner also entered various objections to the ’883 application’s
drawings and claims. Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections and
objections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The ’883 application describes a method for enhancing the
performance of integrated circuit chips. Spec. 1. In this method, stresses are
introduced into the channels of a device that enhance electron or hole
mobility and, thus, the conductivity of the channel. Id.
Claim 16 is the representative of the ’883 application’s claims and is
reproduced below:
16. A method comprising:
enhancing mobility in a first channel that has a first width
via stress engineering;
enhancing mobility in a second channel that has a second
width via stress engineering; and
summing current from the first channel and the second
channel to provide a summed current that is greater than a
single current provided via a single channel that is stress
engineered to enhance mobility and substantially the same as
the first channel and the second channel, but having a single

1 Infineon Technologies AG is identified as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-001856
Application 11/843,883
3
width equal to the sum of the first width and the second width,
wherein:
enhancing mobility in a first channel comprises
enhancing mobility more in the first channel than mobility is
enhanced in the single channel; and
enhancing mobility in a second channel comprises
enhancing mobility more in the second channel than mobility is
enhanced in the single channel.
(App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x).)
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Huang,2 Dathe,3 and SST.4
(Ans. 6.)
2. Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Huang, Dathe, SST, and
HPCwire.5 (Ans. 15.)
DISCUSSION
We begin by noting that the Final Rejection sets forth objections to
the ’883 application’s drawings and claims. Office Action (“FR”) 2-5 (Nov.

2 U.S. Patent No. 7,022,561 B2, issued April 4, 2006.
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0070789 A1, published June
13, 2002.
4 Victor Moroz et al., Analyzing strained-silicon options for stress-
engineering transistors, SOLID STATE TECHNOLOGY 49 (July 2004).
5 AMD and IBM Collaborate on 45nm Process Technology, HPCWIRE (Dec.
15, 2006), http://www.hpcwire.com/offthewire/17889724.html.
Appeal 2012-001856
Application 11/843,883
4
4, 2010). On appeal, Appellants ask us to remove these objections. (App.
Br. 8-9.) The Examiner maintains the objections to the ’883 application’s
claims.6 (Ans. 4-5.)
We cannot grant the relief Appellants seek regarding the Examiner’s
objections because doing so is not within our jurisdiction. Objections or
other requirements imposed by an Examiner are reviewed by way of petition
to the Director under Rule 181. 37 C.F.R. § 1.113 (2010). We, therefore,
express no opinion regarding the propriety of the objections expressed by the
Examiner in the Final Rejection and Answer.
Rejections 1 and 2. Appellants present a single, combined argument
for reversal of both rejections (App. Br. 9-10), based solely on limitations
present in both independent claim 16 and independent claim 27 (id. at 10-
15.). Claims 19-22 and 28 stand or fall with the independent claim from
which each ultimately depends. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010).
Appellants argue that claims 16 and 27 were erroneously rejected
because the Examiner did not establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Ultimately, we agree with Appellants and, therefore, reverse the rejections of
these claims.
Appellants assert that the combinations of references forming the
basis of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16 and 27 (1) do not describe or
suggest summing the currents from the first and second channel to obtain a
summed current that is greater than would have been obtained from a single
channel having a width equal to the sum of the widths of the first and second

6 The Examiner’s Answer does not mention the objections to the drawings
set forth in the Final Rejection.
Appeal 2012-001856
Application 11/843,883
5
channel (App. Br. 10, 11-12, 13-15), (2) are improper because modification
of Dathe in accordance with Huang would render Dathe unsuitable for its
intended use (id. at 11), and (3) are improper because modification of Dathe
in accordance with Huang would change Dathe’s principle of operation (id.).
We begin by addressing Appellants’ arguments against the
modification of Dathe according to Huang. We are not persuaded by these
arguments because they are directed against a straw man. The Examiner’s
rejections are based upon the modification of Huang by adding the summing
of currents described or suggested by Dathe to Huang’s transistors (see Ans.
8-9, 17-18) and not, as asserted by Appellants, the other way around.
Appellants’ first argument, however, is persuasive because the
Examiner neither shows where the combined prior art describes nor explains
how the combined prior art suggests that the summed current will be greater
than the current that would have passed through a single channel that has a
width equal to the combined width of the first and second stress engineered
channels.
The Examiner relies upon Figure 5 of SST as the basis for a finding
that the prior art describes or suggests this claim limitation. (Ans. 10-11, 19-
20.) This reference, however, does not describe or suggest the claimed
relationship between the summed current and the current that passes through
the single channel. The Examiner argues that
[F]ig. 5 . . . of Solid State Technology discloses that channel
stress increases in both directions (across channel and along
channel) as channel width decreases, and since stress
engineering enhance carrier mobility in device having smaller
geometry (channel width), and therefore, it would have
necessary been the case (the data in fig. 5 showing a channel
for 45 nm MOSFET) that combining current from the first
channel (i.e., 45 nm) and the second channel (i.e., 45 nm) to
Appeal 2012-001856
Application 11/843,883
6
provide a combined current that is greater than a single current
provided via a single channel (i.e., 90 nm) that is stress
engineered to enhance mobility and substantially similar to the
first channel and the second channel, but having a single width
(i.e., 90 nm) substantially equal to the sum of the first width
(i.e., 45 nm) and the second width (i.e., 45 nm) because as
channel width decreases channel stress increases (fig. 5 above
shows this data) and therefore carrier mobility increases which
is directly proportional to current and therefore current increase.
(Ans. 19-20 (original emphasis).)
SST, however, does not support this argument. Rather, SST describes
how decreasing channel width improves the performance of one type of
transistor, but degrades the performance of another type of transistor. SST
51. Thus, the Examiner’s finding that SST demonstrates that decreasing
channel width always increases the current provided by a channel is
erroneous.
In the alternative, the Examiner argues that
[T]he method being claimed involves comparing the current in
two transistors with a current in a hypothetical transistor but
does not require that the voltage remains the same. Therefore,
if a different voltage is supplied, the summing current from the
first channel and the second channel to provide a summed
current that is greater than a single current provided via a single
channel that is stress engineered to enhance mobility and
substantially the same as the first channel and the second
channel, but having a single width equal to the sum of the first
width and the second width.
(Ans. 32 (original emphasis).)
We also are not persuaded by this argument, which relies upon an
unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim language. A person of
ordinary skill in the art, after reading Appellants’ Specification would
understand that the claims require comparison of the summed current with
Appeal 2012-001856
Application 11/843,883
7
the current that would have been provided by a single channel at the same
applied voltage.
In sum, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to either claim 16 or claim 27. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejections of these claims and of the claims that depend from
them.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejections of claims 16,
19-22, 27, and 28 as obvious over the prior art. We lack jurisdiction over
the Examiner’s Objections and, therefore, do not comment upon their
propriety.

REVERSED

cdc