Ex Parte Manning

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2014

11492138 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/492,138 07/24/2006 H. Montgomery Manning MICS:0125-1/FLE/02-1164 5272
7590 12/05/2014
Michael G. Fletcher
FLETCHER YODER
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
SMITH, BRADLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2817
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2014 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte H. MONTGOMERY MANNING

____________

Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, RAE LYNN P. GUEST, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to a semiconductor device. The
Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28–39 and 45–
47. The claims stand rejected as follows:
Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138

2
1. Claims 45–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hsu.1
2. Claims 28 and 33–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
of Himeno2 and Jang.3
3. Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Himeno,
Jang, and Huang.4
4. Claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Himeno,
Jang, and Rathi.5
5. Claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Himeno,
Jang, and Lee.6
6. Claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Himeno,
Jang, and Weimer.7
7. Claims 36, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view
of Himeno, Jang, and Park.8
8. Claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Himeno,
Jang, Park, and Huang.
Claims 28 and 45 are representative and read as follows:
28. A device comprising:
an array portion of a substrate comprising a first plurality
of spacers, a first plurality of wordlines associated with at least
one of the first plurality of spacers, and a first plurality of active
areas adjacent to at least one of the first plurality of wordlines,

1 Hsin-Tuei Hsu et al., US 6,306,760 B1 issued Oct. 23, 2001.
2 Yoshiaki Himeno et al., US 2001/0028080 A1 published Oct. 11, 2001.
3 Se-Myeong Jang et al., US 2004/0029372 A1 published Feb. 12, 2004.
4 Julie Huang, US 6,184,076 B1 issued Feb. 6, 2001.
5 Sudha Rathi et al., US 2003/0089992 A1 published May 15, 2003.
6 Kang-Yoon Lee et al., US 6,326,270 B1 issued Dec. 4, 2001.
7 Ronald A. Weimer, US 2003/0040171 A1 published Feb. 27, 2003.
8 Jeong-Soo Park et al., US 6,387,759 B1 issued May 14, 2002.
Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138

3
wherein a dielectric etch stop layer is deposited over each of a
portion of the first plurality of spacers, a portion of the first
plurality of wordlines, and a portion of the first plurality of
active areas;
a peripheral portion of the substrate comprising a second
plurality of spacers, a second plurality of wordlines associated
with at least one of the second plurality of spacers, and a second
plurality of active areas adjacent to at least one of the second
plurality of wordlines; and
a conductive layer electrically coupled to at least one of
the first plurality of active areas and one of at least one of the
second plurality of active areas and at least one of the second
plurality of wordlines, wherein the conductive layer forms an
interconnect between the array portion and the peripheral
portion.

45. A device comprising:
an array portion comprising a first plurality of structures;
a peripheral portion comprising a second plurality of
structures;
a dielectric etch stop layer, wherein the dielectric etch
stop layer partially covers the array portion and is not present
on the peripheral portion; and
a plurality of spacers disposed adjacent to at least a
portion of the first and second plurality of structures, wherein
two of the spacers directly contact opposite sides of at least one
of the first plurality of structures, and wherein the spacers do
not comprise the dielectric etch stop layer.

REJECTION 1. ANTICIPATION BY HSU
Claim 45
Claim 45 is directed to a device comprising, inter alia, 1) “an array
portion comprising a first plurality of structures”; and “a peripheral portion
comprising a second plurality of structures.” A “plurality of spacers” are
“disposed adjacent to at least a portion of the first and second plurality of
App
App

struc
cont

of cl
The
semi

porti
elect
The
of su
“plur
“spa
adjac
Id.
eal 2012-0
lication 11
tures.” Th
act opposit
The Exa
aim 45. F
figure has
conductor
Fig. 5 sh
on 20 and
rode 16 an
Examiner
ch structu
ality of st
cers” 25 as
ent to at l
10718
/492,138
e claim fu
e sides of
miner foun
ig. 5 of Hs
been anno
wafer disc
ows a sem
peripheral
d buffer o
further fou
res, meetin
ructures.”
recited in
east a port
rther recit
at least on
d that Hsu
u, illustrat
tated with
losed in H
iconducto
portion 3
xide later
nd that H
g the claim
Id. The E
claim 45
ion of the
4
es that “tw
e of the fir
describes
ing these f
labels to i
su.
r wafer co
0. The Ex
24 constitu
su’s semic
ed limita
xaminer a
which, as
first and se
o of the sp
st pluralit
all the ele
eatures, is
ndicate th
mprising t
aminer fou
ted a “stru
onductor w
tions of fir
lso found
depicted a
cond plur
acers dire
y of structu
ments of
reproduce
e parts of t
he claimed
nd that th
cture.” A
afer has a
st and sec
that Hsu d
bove, are “
ality of str
ctly
res.”
the device
d below.
he
array
e gate
nswer 5.
plurality
ond
escribes
disposed
uctures.”

Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138

5
Claim 45 also recites that “two of the spacers directly contact opposite
sides of at least one of the first plurality of structures.” The Examiner found
that Hsu shows spacers 25 are in direct contact and on opposite sides of the
structure comprising 16 and 24, meeting this recited claim limitation.
Answer 5 and 12–13.
Appellant contends that it is unreasonable to interpret “structure” as
recited in claim 45 to mean two separate elements 16 and 24. Reply Br. 2–3.
Appellant argues that element 24 is made up of a different material than 16,
performs a different function, and is added at different times, and thus the
buffer oxide layer 24 cannot be considered to part of a common structure
with gate electrode 16. Id. at 3. The issue in this rejection is therefore
whether the Examiner’s interpretation of “structure” to correspond to
elements 16 and 24 is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim
term.
During patent prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term “structure” is not defined in Application
No. 11/492,138 at issue in this appeal (“the ’138 Application”). Appellant
does not identify a definition of it. The term “structure” is ordinarily defined
to mean “2. something built or constructed, as a building, bridge, or dam
[or] 4. anything composed of parts arranged together in some way; an
organization.”9 Patent Owner provides no persuasive evidence that this

9 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/structure (accessed Nov. 28, 2014).
Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138

6
definition is inconsistent with how the term is used in the ’138 Application
or with how it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Consequently, we interpret a “structure” to include something which is
composed of parts that is organized in some way.
As discussed above, the Examiner considered elements 24 and 16 to
define a “structure.” The Examiner’s interpretation of structure to include
elements 24 and 16 is consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation
of “structure” to mean something organized that is composed of parts, i.e.,
24 and 16. Appellant does not provide an alternative narrower definition or
identify a description in the ’138 Application which would exclude two
organized elements from constituting a “structure” as the term is used in
claim 45. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s other findings as to
how claim 45 is described in Hsu. Since we also find no defect in the
Examiner’s findings, we affirm the rejection of claim 45 as anticipated by
Hsu.

Claims 46 and 47
Claims 46 and 47 depend from claim 45 and further recite that the
plurality of structures comprises a plurality of wordlines. The Examiner
found that gate electrodes 16 and 18 correspond to the claimed wordlines.
Answer 5. Appellant contends there is “no disclosure in Hsu that a gate
electrode is analogous to a wordline.” Appeal Br. 8. However, the
Examiner cited the Schuegraf publication as evidence that “wordlines can
comprise the control gates of transistors.” Answer 6. Appellant did not
rebut this evidence or identify a defect in it. Consequently, we affirm the
Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138

7
anticipation rejection of claims 46 and 47 for the reasons set forth by the
Examiner.

REJECTION 2. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF HIMENO AND JANG
Independent claim 28 is drawn to a device with array and peripheral
portions. The array and peripheral portions comprise spacers, wordlines
associated with the spacers, and active areas. In the array portion, the claim
recites that “a dielectric etch stop layer is deposited over each of a portion of
the first plurality of spacers, a portion of the first plurality of wordlines, and
a portion of the first plurality of active areas.”
The Examiner found that Himeno describes a device with wordlines,
active areas, and an etch layer 26, but not having spacers. Answer 6–7. The
Examiner found that spacers are described in Jang. The Examiner stated that
it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Himeno and Jang
“because sidewalls [spacers] on the side of the gate(wordlines) would reduce
the short channel effect and threshold voltage stability would be improved”
as described in paragraph 28 of Jang. Id. at 7.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred. Appellant contends that
Jang’s sidewall spacers are made of silver nitride, the same material as the
silver nitride film 26 that lines the sidewalls of the control gates of Himeno.
Appeal Br. 11. Thus, Appellant argues “the control gates of Himeno are
already lined with the silicon nitride film 26 of Himeno. Presumably, any
benefits that could be provided by the silicon nitride insulating spacers 129
of Jang would be offset by the silicon nitride film 26 that is already present
in Himeno.” Id.
App
App

the s

of th
film
gate
incre
As a
char
¶ 28
Id. A
alon
Thus
silve
eal 2012-0
lication 11
Fig. 24A
idewalls o
Fig. 24A
e wordline
. Himeno
Jang dis
pattern (w
asing the
result, a s
acteristics,
and Fig. 3
s argued
g the sidew
, we agree
r nitride sp
10718
/492,138
of Himen
f the word
of Himen
s 21, 22.
¶¶ 88, 117
closes insu
ordlines) w
length of t
hort chann
such as th
. The only
by Appell
alls of the
with App
acers to th
o, reprodu
lines. Lab
o shows th
Layer 26 i
.
lating side
hich “can
he gate ch
el effect m
reshold vo
material
ant, howev
wordline
ellant that
e sidewal
8
ced below
els have b
e layer 26
s describe
wall spac
be wide e
annel betw
ay be redu
ltage stab
described
er, Himen
s as shown
there wou
ls of word
, shows th
een added
positione
d by Hime
ers 129 on
nough to
een the so
ced, and
ility, may
for the spa
o already
in Fig. 24
ld be no re
lines as re
e etch lay
.

d along th
no as a sil
the sidew
provide an
urce and t
device
be improv
cer is silv
has silver
A reprodu
ason to ad
quired by c
er 26 along
e sidewall
ver nitride
alls of a
effect of
he drain.
ed.” Jang
er nitride.
nitride
ced above
d Jang’s
laim 28

s

.
Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138

9
because silver nitride is already present and whatever advantages it confers
(according to Jang) would already be manifested by Himeno as a
consequence of silver nitride layer 26. The Examiner did not adequately
address Appellant’s argument. Answer 14. Consequently, the obviousness
rejection of claim 28, and dependent claims 33–35, is reversed.

REJECTION 7. OBVIOUSNESS IN VIEW OF HIMENO, JANG, AND
PARK

Claim 36 is similar to claim 28, but does not require spacers, and
further comprises “a first plurality of conductive plugs associated with the
first plurality of active areas” and “a dielectric etch stop layer is deposited
over each of a portion of the first plurality of wordlines, a portion of the first
plurality of active areas, and a portion of the first plurality of conductive
plugs” (emphasis added).
The Examiner found that Himeno describes a conductive plug
(“contact plug”), but not with an etch stop layer over it as recited in claim
36. Answer 10. However, the Examiner found that Park describes a
dielectric etch layer 130 over a portion of a conductive plug 116/119. Id. at
11. The Examiner found it obvious to add an etch stop layer over Himeno’s
conductive plug because the “etch stop would act as a mask over the plugs
so that the area over the plug could be selectively etched and a conductor
can be electrically connected to the plug.” Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred. Appellant argues that there is
no need to put an etch stop layer on the conductive plugs 13 of Himeno
because, once the plugs 13 are formed, a titanium film 29 of Himeno is
App
App

direc
App
inter
etchi
be el

evid
(The
of th

titan
“The
to th
hand
whic
17.
very
the c
eal 2012-0
lication 11
tly deposi
ellant argu
layer 130
ng away t
ectrically
Appellan
ence. Plug
arrow and
e original
Fig. 37C
ium film 2
contact p
e drain reg
, shows in
h is etched
Himeno th
differently
onductive
10718
/492,138
ted on top
es that Par
of Park ov
he interlay
connected
t’s argum
s 13 of Hi
label “co
figure).
of Himen
9 and a tu
lug 13 con
ion of the
terlayer la
back in F
us forms t
than Park
plug beca
of the con
k, in contr
er the plug
er 130 to a
to other d
ent is supp
meno are
nductive p
o shows p
ngsten film
necting to
select tran
yer 130 on
ig. 5C to e
he electric
. There is
use electri
10
ductive pl
ast, “teach
s 118 and
ccess the
evice featu
orted by a
shown in F
lug 13” ha
lugs 13. A
30 are on
the bit lin
sistor.” H
top of the
lectrically
al connect
no need t
cal access
ugs 13. A
[es] apply
119 of Pa
plugs 118
res.” Id. a
preponde
ig. 37A re
s been add
bit line (
top of the
e BL is so
imeno ¶ 9
conductiv
access th
ion with th
o add an e
is by the b
ppeal Br.
ing an ins
rk, then se
and 119 so
t 17.
rance of th
produced
ed and is

“BL”) mad
contact p
formed as
0. Park, o
e plugs in
e plugs. A
e conduct
tch layer o
it line BL
16–17.
ulating
lectively
they can
e
below
not a part
e of a
lugs 13.
to connec
n the othe
Fig. 5B,
ppeal Br.
ive plugs
n top of
.
t
r
Appeal 2012-010718
Application 11/492,138

11
The Examiner did not address the differences between Himeno and
Park with regard to how the electrical connections are made. Answer 17.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that there would be no reason to apply
Park to Himeno is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
The rejection of claim 36, and dependent claims 38 and 39, is
reversed because the preponderance of the evidence does not support the
Examiner’s reasoning to combine Himeno and Park.

REJECTIONS 3–6 and 8

Claims 29–32 and 37 stand rejected under Rejections 3–6 and 8.
Claims 29–32 depend from independent claim 28. Claim 37 depends from
independent claim 36. The rejections of claims 28 and 36 are reversed.
Consequently, for the same reasons, we reverse the rejection of dependent
claims 29–32 and 37.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons described above, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 45–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 28–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

TIME PERIOD
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-IN-PART
kmm