Ex Parte Maszara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2013

11691347 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WITOLD P. MASZARA
____________

Appeal 2011-009874
Application 11/691,347
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 11-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a semiconductor device in which more

1 The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc.” Appeal Brief filed December 2, 2010 (“Br.”) at 2.
Appeal 2011-009874
Application 11/691,347

2
functions are integrated into the device. Specification (“Spec.”) ¶¶ 2-10.
Representative claim 11 is reproduced below:
11. A semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor die having a first device layer and a
second device layer, the second device layer has a hole with a
width in a range about a half of a minimum pitch to a tenth of
the minimum pitch and is over the first device layer, the second
device layer having the hole has a characteristic of being
formed by lithography etching around at least one vertical post
corresponding to the hole.
Br. 17 (Claims App’x.)
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 as unpatentable over Doyle;2
II. Claim 13 as unpatentable over Doyle in view of Manger;3
III. Claim 15 as unpatentable over Doyle in view of Abatchev;4 and
IV. Claims 18-20 as unpatentable over Doyle.
Examiner’s Answer entered March 1, 2011 (“Ans.”) 3-23.

DISCUSSION
With respect to Rejections II through IV, the Appellant relies on the
same arguments offered against Rejection I and also refers to the additional
limitations of claims 13, 15, and 18-20. Br. 5-15. Mere references to
limitations, however, do not constitute arguments in support of the separate

2 U.S. Patent 6,063,688, issued May 16, 2000.
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0157436 A1, published August
21, 2003.
4 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0263699 A1, published
November 23, 2006.
Appeal 2011-009874
Application 11/691,347

3
patentability of a claim. Therefore, our ruling on claim 11, which we select
as representative of the claims subject to Rejection I, is dispositive for all
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We review the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 for reversible error
based upon the issues identified by the Appellant in their Brief. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[E]ven assuming that the examiner
had failed to make a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in
framing the issue as one of ‘reversible error.’ As recently acknowledged by
the Board, it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections . . . .”).
The Appellant does not dispute – with any reasonable degree of
specificity – the Examiner’s factual findings that Doyle describes a
semiconductor device comprising a semiconductor die having a first device
layer (deep submicron layer 280) and a second device layer (trench material
270) with holes (deep submicron dots 210) having widths within the range
recited in claim 11. Br. 5-15; Ans. 3 (citing Figs. 25-27; col. 1, ll. 12-26;
col. 5, ll. 25-48; col. 9, ll. 30-51). Rather, the Appellant argues that “[b]y
utilizing a fabrication method that includes vertical spacers as well as
multiple lithographic masking structures,” the “holes [in the claimed device]
are not uniformly spaced from each and are not all the same shape and size,”
whereas “Doyle’s process results in trenches that are all uniformly spaced
and exhibit the same shape and size . . . .” Br. 5, 7-8. According to the
Appellant, “Doyle’s disclosure does not and cannot produce non-uniform
sub-minimum pitch features such as those made possible through use of the
present inventive concepts . . . .” Id. at 8.
Appeal 2011-009874
Application 11/691,347

4
Claim 11, however, contains no limitations regarding any non-
uniformity in the spacings, shapes, or sizes of the holes. Nor does the claim
recite any specific product-by-process limitations requiring the use of
vertical spacers and multiple lithographic structures to provide a materially
different device, let alone a patentably distinguishable device, as compared
to the prior art device. The Appellant’s argument based on non-uniformity
fails at the outset because even where a specification describes certain
operational characteristics particular to an embodiment, such characteristics
cannot be read into a claim when the claim itself does not recite such
characteristics. In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(citing In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)).
The Appellant also argues that, in Doyle, “trench material 270 is a
dielectric material and where deep submicron layer 280 is a dielectric or an
insulator, deep submicron dots 210 formed in the processes of the cited art
become regularly spaced, shaped, and sized deep submicron filled boxes that
are confined within three dimensions.” Br. 11 (italics added). But the
Appellant’s “hole,” as recited in claim 11, reads on a filled box confined
within three dimensions. See Fig. 1; Spec. ¶ 29.
For these reasons and those set forth in the Answer, we uphold the
Examiner’s rejections.

SUMMARY
Rejections I through IV are affirmed.

Appeal 2011-009874
Application 11/691,347

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

cdc