Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 7, 2016

12021728 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/021,728 01129/2008
82346 7590 03/09/2016
CLARK HILL PLC
150 North Michigan Avenue
Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60601
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hong Lin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
03-2202/lD 4387
EXAMINER
TANG,SUIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
mkitz@clarkhill.com
jfoley@clarkhill.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG LIN, WAI LO, SEY-SHING SUN, and
RICHARD CARTER1
Appeal2014-006594
Application 12/021,728
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's decision obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1
over Grupp2 in view of Satoh3 and of claim 3 over Grupp in view of Satoh
and Xiang.4 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify LSI Corporation as the Real Party in Interest. Appeal
Brief ("Br."), 4.
2 Grupp et al., US 2004/0142524 Al, published July 22, 2004.
3 Satoh et al., US 5,543,646, issued August 6, 1996.
4 Xiang et al., US 2005/0040477 Al, published February 24, 2005.
Appeal2014-006594
Application 12/021,728
BACKGROUND
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a metal gate in a wafer.
Spec. 5, 11. 13-15; Abstract (describing how the metal gate is formed). As
described, see Figure 14, the gate comprises a liner 60 with a groove-filled
with metal 7 6-defined by inner walls of the liner, wherein outer walls of
the liner are parallel from the top to bottom of the liner and the inner walls
of the liner have first parallel, tapering, and second parallel walls with the
tapering walls joining first parallel walls with second parallel walls. Spec. 5,
ll.13-15;8,ll.13-17;Fig.14.
Claim 1-the sole independent claim-is illustrative:
1. A metal gate in a wafer comprising; a liner having
parallel outer walls which are parallel from a top of the liner to
a bottom of the liner, said bottom of the liner being in contact
with a silicon substrate, said liner having inner walls which
define a groove, wherein the inner walls of the liner comprise
first parallel sidewalls, second parallel sidewalls, as well as a
tapered profile portion which converges in a straight line from
the first parallel sidewalls to the second parallel sidewalls, said
second parallel sidewalls ending in contact with the silicon
substrate; metal in the groove in contact with the first parallel
sidewalls, in contact with the second parallel sidewalls, in
contact with the tapered profile portion of the groove defined by
the liner and the silicon substrate, and in contact with the
silicon substrate thereby providing said metal gate on the
silicon substrate.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
DISCUSSION
Appellants rely on arguments as to the patentability of claim 1 for
both claim 1 and claim 3. App. Br. 10-13. With no separate arguments
2
Appeal2014-006594
Application 12/021,728
proffered, all claims will stand or fall together with independent claim 1,
which we select as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Upon consideration of the evidence, Appellants' arguments, and the
Examiner's findings and reasoning, 5 we find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in
the art, armed with the knowledge provided in the applied prior art, would
have been led to the subject matter recited in claims 1 and 3 within the
meaning of35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants' arguments, thus, fail to identify
reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection which we,
accordingly, sustain for the reasons set forth in the Final Rejection and the
Answer. We add the discussion below primarily for emphasis.
The Examiner finds Grupp discloses a gate (metal) bounded by liner
(oxide) having parallel outer walls from the top of the liner to the bottom of
the liner with inner walls in contact with the metal. Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Grupp ,-i 73, Fig. 7 A).
The Examiner finds Satoh discloses a shaped gate PET (citing Satoh
Figs. 4D, 6D) and teaches that "the shaped gate PET can operate at high
speed and can be highly integrated, the transductance is not degraded (citing
Satoh, col. 2, 1. 66 to col. 3, 1. 10). Final Act. 3. The cited gate of Satoh, as
shown in Figure 4D, is reproduced below:
5 We refer to the Final Office Action (mailed May 24, 2013), the Appeal
Brief (filed December 12, 2013), the Examiner's Answer (mailed February
25, 2014), and the Reply Brief (filed April 24, 2014).
3
Appeal2014-006594
Application 12/021,728
FIG. 40
Satoh, Fig. 4D. As depicted in cross-section, the gate has an upper portion
(3b) with parallel sides and a lower portion (3a) with a tapering section
tapering to a second section with parallel sides. Satoh col. 5, 11. 5-8.
The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply the teaching of Satoh to Grupp's gate for the
benefit of the high speed operation and high degree of integration and doing
so would arrive at the claimed invention (Final Act. 3), that is, a metal gate
having an upper portion with parallel sides and a lower portion with a
tapering section tapering to a second section with parallel sides bounded by
a liner contacting the metal and having parallel outer walls from the top of
the liner to the bottom of the liner.
While conceding Satoh discloses a metal gate with "first parallel
sidewalls, second parallel sidewalls, and a tapered profile portion which
converges from the first parallel sidewalls to the second parallel sidewalls"
Appellants argue that Satoh "does not disclose a liner" and does not disclose
that it would be shaped like that claimed. App. Br. 11 (citing Satoh Fig.
4D). As to the liner disclosed in Grupp's Fig. 7 A, Appellants' contend it
lacks complex shaped sidewalls as "the gate is a square or rectangular
block." App. Br. 11. Appellants contend "arriving at a liner having the
4
Appeal2014-006594
Application 12/021,728
claimed shape requires the performance of several depositing, etching etc.
steps" and that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the liner as
claimed. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants argue that the Examiner has erred in
making assumptions and is improperly relying on hindsight to arrive at the
claimed invention. App. Br. 11-12.
Having carefully considered the record, we find Appellants'
arguments unpersuasive of reversible error because they fail to address the
relied on combination of Grupp and Satoh in which Grupp' s liner's inner
sidewalls, not the outer sidewalls, are altered to conform to the shape of the
metal gate disclosed in Satoh. Final Act. 3. As such, Appellants' arguments
do not address squarely what the combined teachings of Grupp and Satoh
reasonably would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) ("Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references."); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(The test for obviousness "is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
As to Appellants' skeletal arguments that the claimed shape requires
the performance of various steps, we find them without merit because they
lack sufficient evidentiary support-as mere attorney argument-and
because they are directed to limitations-steps to form recited structure-
that do not appear in the claims. In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA
1982) ("[A]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are
not based on limitations appearing in the claims.").
5
Appeal2014-006594
Application 12/021,728
Further, we note that rather than being silent as to a liner and its shape
as Appellants contend (App. Br. 11 ), Satoh explicitly discloses silicon oxide
film sidewalls 5 on the side walls of the gate electrode 3 (Satoh col. 9, 11. 21-
23; Fig. 8B) and Appellants fail to explain how the disclosed structure does
not correspond to a liner where the Specification discloses that the liner 60
can be formed of oxide ... such as Si02 [silicon oxide]" (Spec. 7, 1. 20).
As to Appellants' observation in the Reply Brief that the "Examiner
contends that it seems the Applicant is arguing with regard to complex inner
sidewalls instead of the outer sidewalls" (Reply Br. 2), the Examiner
reasonably inferred that Appellants' argument was not that the outer
sidewall of Grupp' s liner did not have the complex geometry, but rather that
the inner sidewalls, i.e., the sides of the liner in contact with the gate, lacked
the claimed geometry (Ans. 3). It follows that the skeletal argument
reiterated in the Reply Brief that the structure and shape of a liner as
specifically claimed is not suggested or disclosed (Reply Br. 2) is
unpersuasive as explained above.
Furthermore, it has been established that "the [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the
specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in
the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
For these reasons, it cannot be said that the Appellants have shown
reversible error in the Examiner's determination that one of ordinary skill in
6
Appeal2014-006594
Application 12/021,728
the art, armed with the knowledge of the cited prior art, would have been led
to the subject matter recited in the appealed claims. See, e.g., In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 ).
AFFIRMED
7