Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2012

10977186 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONG-WON LEE, KUO-WEI CHANG,
and MICHAEL L. MCSWINEY
____________

Appeal 2010-006275
Application 10/977,186
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DEBRA K. STEPHENS,
and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006275
Application 10/977,186

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 10, 11, and 13-16, which are all the claims pending in this application
as claims 1-9, 12, and 17-28 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a process for making phase change
memories made of titanium silicon nitride films (see Spec. 2:1-12 and 10:5-
19).
Exemplary independent claim 10 reads as follows:
10. A method comprising:
using tetrakis-(dimethylamino) titanium and tris-
(dimethylamino) silane to form a titanium silicon nitride heater
having at least 10 atomic percent silicon for a phase change
memory.
Rejections
Claims 10, 11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dennison (US 2003/0036232 A1) and Sandhu (US
5,252,518).
Claims 10 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sandhu.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sandhu and Chung (US 2003/0108674 A1).

Appeal 2010-006275
Application 10/977,186

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We agree with the Examiner’s
conclusions.
With respect to claim 10, Appellants contend that the process
disclosed in Sandhu results in a contact having low resistance, whereas the
present disclosure indicates the existence of “a problem with getting high
silicon concentrations in the titanium silicon nitride layer and, therefore, it is
difficult to achieve the high contact resistance” (App. Br. 9). Appellants
further argue that “Dennison does not explain how to get the 1:1:1 ratio of
TiSiN” and concludes that the reference “may not be enabling on this point”
(id.).
In response, the Examiner points out that the relatively high resistance
heater discussed by Appellants is not clearly described in comparison with
other devices or a low resistance contact (Ans. 6-7). The Examiner further
argues that Dennison discloses a TiSiN ratio of 1:1:1 using chemical vapor
deposition (CVD), which may be modified by Sandhu’s source gases SIN
and TMAT for adding silicon and titanium (Ans. 7).
We agree with these findings and conclusions and adopt them as our
own. We specifically find that the Examiner has correctly identified the
discussed resistivities as being only relative (Ans. 6-7). We also observe
that Appellants have not identified any process details in their Specification
for achieving the claimed silicon concentration other than using tetrakis-
(dimethylamino) titanium and tris-(dimethylamino) silane (see e.g., Spec.
10:5-19). As such, contrary to Appellants’ contentions (Reply Br. 2) and
absent specific disclosure regarding the titanium silicon nitride heater
Appeal 2010-006275
Application 10/977,186

4
resistivity levels, the Examiner has shown in the applied prior art the recited
compounds and concentrations that would have achieved the claimed
properties (see Ans. 3-4 and 7).

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 10, as well as claims 11 and 13-16 not argued separately
(App. Br. 9), over the combination of Dennison and Sandhu. For the same
reasons, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10
and 14 over Sandhu, or in rejecting claim 15 over Sandhu and Chung.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 11, and 13-16 is
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

tj