Ex parte Lee et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 15, 1998

07815316 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 30, 1991. 1
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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KUO-HUA LEE and CHEN-HUA D. YU
____________
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,3161
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, GRON and PAK, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Kuo-Hua Lee et al. (appellants) appeal from the final
rejection of claims 1 through 5, which are all of the claims
pending in the application.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of
manufacturing “integrated circuits having self-aligned electrical
contacts.” See specification, page 1, lines 3-4. The claims on
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
2
appeal are represented by independent claim 1 which is reproduced
below:
1. A method of integrated circuit manufacturing comprising
the steps of:
forming a plurality of spaced apart gate electrodes, said
electrodes comprising a conducting structure, an insulating top
layer, and dielectric sidewalls;
depositing a layer of conformal dielectric, said layer
contacting at least a portion of said gate electrodes and the
substrate between the gate electrodes;
depositing a layer of photoresist;
forming openings in said photoresist which expose portions
of said conformal dielectric between said gate structures, said
openings being larger than the desired contact area;
etching at least a portion of said conformal dielectric
layer to expose a portion of the substrate between said gate
structures; and
forming a landing pad contacting said substrate.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following references:
Liu et al. (Liu) 5,049,517 Sep. 17, 1991
(filed Nov. 7, 1990)
Fazan et al. (Fazan) 5,084,405* Jan. 28, 1992
(filed Jun. 7, 1991)
* The Examiner’s Answer incorrectly cites 5,048,405 on page 2
thereof.
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
3
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
(1) Claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable in view of the combined disclosures of Fazan and
Liu; and
(2) Claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as lacking adequate written description for the
limitation “depositing a layer of conformal dielectric, said
layer contacting at least a portion of said gate electrodes”
in the disclosure as originally filed.
We reverse each of the above rejections.
OBVIOUSNESS
Appellants dispute the examiner’s findings that Fazan’s
“polysilicon layer 61 matches the landing pad’s conditions”
(Answer, page 4) defined in the specification (Specification
page 2, lines 10-11) and forms “a landing pad contacting said
substrate” in accordance with the method of claim 1. The
dispositive question is, therefore, whether the prior art relied
upon by the examiner describes or would have suggested “forming
a landing pad contacting said substrate” in accordance with
claim 1. We answer this question in the negative.
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
4
As a matter of law, we initially interpret this disputed
limitation to determine its scope and meaning. We give the claim
language its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the description of the invention in the specification. See In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
When, for example, an intent is expressed in the specification to
utilize a term or expression in a more limited sense, we will
give that term or expression in a claim such limited meaning.
Cf. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582,
39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This “rule
of thumb” for claim interpretation allows appellants to be their
own lexicographers. See ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp.,
844 F.2d 1576, 1580, 6 USPQ2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, appellants have defined “a landing pad” in the
specification. According to page 2, lines 10-11, of the
specification, “[a] metal is deposited and patterned to define
the contact which is termed a landing pad.” Appellants then go
onto explain that (specification, page 3, lines 18-19):
The metal may be blanket deposited and then patterned
to form the landing pad. The resulting structure is
depicted in FIG. 3.
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
5
Appellants’ purpose is to manufacture “integrated circuits having
self-aligned electrical contacts.” See Specification, page 1,
lines 3-4. Thus, we interpret the disputed limitation “forming a
landing pad contacting said substrate” as depositing a metal and
patterning it to define self-aligned electrical contacts.
Having so interpreted the claim language, we agree with
appellants that the examiner has not established that the claimed
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In this regard, we find that the examiner erred in characterizing
employment of polysilicon layer 61 in Fazan’s Figure 8 as forming
a landing pad inasmuch as polysilicon layer 61 forms the lower
plate of a stacked capacitor, which does not define self-aligned
electrical contacts. See column 5, lines 1-16. The examiner has
not proffered any evidence which would have suggested depositing
a metal and patterning it to define self-aligned electrical
contacts. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
6
DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based upon a disclosure which
fails to satisfy the description requirement of that paragraph.
At issue is whether the recitation “depositing a layer of
conformal dielectric, said layer contacting at least a portion of
said gate electrodes” in claim 1 is described in the disclosure
as originally filed within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. It appears to be the examiner’s position* that the
conformal dielectric layer contacts only insulation layers 11 and
9 as shown in Figure 1 and does not contact at least a portion of
said gate electrode. See Answer, page 5. Thus, the examiner
concludes that the recitation in question is not described in the
disclosure as originally filed. See Answer, pages 4 and 5.
We initially note that the description requirement found in
the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is separate from the
enablement requirement of that provision. See Vas-Cath Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1561-63, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1115-17 (Fed.
Cir. 1991); In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 591, 194 USPQ 470, 472
* We say “appears to be the examiner’s position” because the
examiner’s Response to argument in the final two pages of the
Answer is difficult to comprehend.
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
7
(CCPA 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1064, 197 USPQ 271 (1978).
Moreover, as the court stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366,
1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983):
The test for determining compliance with the written
description requirement is whether the disclosure of
the application as originally filed reasonably conveys
to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that
time of the later claimed subject matter, rather than
the presence or absence of literal support in the
specification for the claimed language. The content of
the drawings may also be considered in determining
compliance with the written description requirement.
(citations omitted)
Precisely how close the original description must come to the
actual claim language to comply with the description requirement
must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Here, both the specification and the appealed claims
indicate that a gate electrode includes a conducting structure,
insulating (dielectric) sidewalls 11 and an insulating top
layer 9. See specification, page 2, lines 4-5, in conjunction
with the preamble of claim 1. As correctly found by the
examiner, Figure 1, one of the application drawings, shows a
conforming dielectric layer 13 contacting insulation layers 9 and
11, which are part of a gate electrode. The specification also
states that “[a] layer of a conformal dielectric is deposited
over the surface of the substrate and the gate electrodes. . . .”
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
8
See page 2, lines 5-6. Thus, we find that the original
disclosure of the application (taken as a whole) would have
reasonably conveyed to the artisan that appellants had possession
of the later claimed subject matter, i.e., “depositing a layer of
conformal dielectric, said layer contacting at least a portion of
said gate electrodes”, at the time the application was filed.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision rejecting claims
1 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as well.
CONCLUSION
Having determined that the examiner has failed to supply
evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and § 112, first paragraph,
we reverse the examiner’s rejections of all appealed claims
thereunder.
REVERSED
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TEDDY S. GRON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 94-0166
Application No. 07/815,316
9
P.V.D. Wilde
AT&T Bell Lab.
600 Mountain Avenue
P.O. Box 636
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636
CKP/jrg
JENINE GILLIS
Appeal No. 94-0166
Serial No. 07/815,316
Judge PAK
Judge GRON
Judge WILLIAM SMITH
Typed: 09 Jul 98
Revision: 11 Jul 98
DECISION: REVERSED

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Heard: Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk: ____
Updated Monthly Report:____