Ex Parte Miyata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 12, 2014

11064586 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KOJI MIYATA
____________________

Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

2
The claims are directed to an electronic device, such as a SRAM
device, with a shared contact between a gate of one MOSFET and a source
or drain region of another MOSFET (Spec. ¶ 0001). Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An electronic device comprising a doped
semiconductor shared contact between (a) a gate conductor
region of at least one transistor and (b) a diffusion region of at
least one transistor, wherein a single dielectric layer extends
from a top surface of said gate conductor region to a conductive
interconnect, said conductive interconnect disposed directly
over and adjacent to the single dielectric layer, and further
wherein said shared contact does not extend to a top surface of
said single dielectric layer.
(Claims App’x at Reply Br.1 17.)
The rejections on appeal are as follows:
A. Claims 1-6, 8, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Admitted Prior Art Fig.2A (APA Fig. 2A) in view
of Christensen2 and further in view of Ohno3 (Supp. Ans.4 5-6);
B. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over APA
Fig. 2A in view of Christensen and Ohno further in view of Kim5
(Supp. Ans. 8);
C. Claims 10-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over APA Fig. 2A in view of Christensen, Ohno, and
further in view of Oh6 (Supp. Ans. 9-10);7

1 All citations to the Reply Brief are to the Reply Brief filed July 29, 2011.
2 Christensen et al., US 6,492,244 B1, patented Dec. 10, 2002.
3 Ohno, US 5,621,232, patented Apr. 15, 1997.
4 Supplemental Answer filed May 31, 2011.
5 Kim et al., US 6,794,730 B2, patented Sept. 21, 2004.
6 Oh et al., US 2002/0093042 A1, pub. Jul. 18, 2002.
7 The Examiner omits Ohno from the statement of the rejection, but the body
of the rejection indicates that the Examiner is relying upon Ohno (Supp.
Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

3
D. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over APA Fig. 2A in view of Christensen, Ohno, Oh,8 and further
in view of Cheng9 (Supp. Ans. 10);
E. Claims 1-8, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Admitted Prior Art Fig. 2B (APA Fig. 2B) in view of
Christensen (Supp. Ans. 7-8);
F. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over APA
Fig. 2B in view of Christensen and further in view of Kim (Supp.
Ans. 11);
G. Claims 10-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over APA Fig. 2B in view of Christensen and further in
view of Oh (Supp. Ans. 11-12);
H. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over APA Fig. 2B in view of Christensen, Oh, and further in view
of Cheng (Supp. Ans. 13).
Appellant argues Rejections A-D as a group and Rejections E-H as a
separate group (Reply Br. 7-15). The issues being the same for Rejections
A-D with a separate issue presented for Rejections E-H, we discuss each
group of rejections together, selecting claims 1 and 17, the independent
claims as representative for resolving the issues for both groups of
rejections.

Ans. 9). Appellants assume the Examiner is relying upon Ohno and argue
the rejections accordingly (Reply Br. 5). The error is harmless.
8 The Examiner refers to “Oet al.” in the listing of the rejections, but it is
clear from the context of the rejection that the Examiner meant to refer to
“Oh et al.”
9 Cheng et al., US 7,176,522 B2, patented Feb. 13, 2007.
Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

4
OPINION
Rejections A-D
Claims 1 and 17 are both directed to an electronic device including a
shared contact (shown at 36c in Appellant’s Fig. 3). Appellant’s Figure 3 is
reproduced below:

Schematic cross section of a shared contact region of an embodiment of
Appellant’s SRAM

The claims require a single dielectric layer (30) that extends from a
top surface of a gate region (34a) to a conductive interconnect (42a) (Claims
1 and 17). The claims further require a shared contact region (36c) that does
not extend to the top surface of the single dielectric layer (30) (id.).
Moreover, the conductive interconnect (42a) is disposed directly over and
adjacent to the single dielectric layer (30) (Claims 1 and 17).
There is no dispute that Appellant’s Figure 2A, which depicts an
admittedly known electronic device, includes a shared contact 32s that,
Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

5
contrary to the requirements of claims 1 and 17, extends to the top surface of
single dielectric layer 30 (Supp. Ans. 6). Figure 2A is reproduced below:

Schematic cross-section of prior art shared contact region of a SRAM

According to Appellant’s Specification, shared contact 32s of the
prior art was created by forming a hole in the dielectric layer 30, and
subsequently filling the hole with a metal, such as tungsten (Spec. ¶ 0007).
As properly found by the Examiner, Ohno teaches a shared contact
(shown in Figure 43 at 7) that does not extend to a top surface of a single
dielectric layer (Supp. Ans. 6). Figure 43 of Ohno is reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

6

Cross-section of Ohno’s sixth embodiment of a SRAM

Ohno’s Figure 43 depicts a titanium silicide layer 7 formed over the
top surface of gate electrode 4 and extending to the surfaces of the diffusion
region 5b to form a local interconnect (Ohno, col. 17, ll. 46-52). Figure 43
shows that the local interconnect 7 (shared contact) does not extend to the
top surface of the dielectric layer. Local interconnect 7 electrically connects
the gate electrode 4 to interconnection layer 43 (Ohno, col. 18, ll. 4-5).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to form a shared contact which does not extend to the
top surface of the single dielectric layer as taught by Ohno “in order to
achieve high integration of semiconductor device (the height of device being
reduc[ed].” (Supp. Ans. 6, citing Ohno, col. 1, ll. 15-25.)
Appellant contends that the combination of the prior art and Ohno
“fails to teach or suggest an electronic device, as claimed by Applicant, in
which a ‘single dielectric layer 30 extends from a top surface of said gate
conductor region 34a to a conductive interconnect 42a, said conductive
interconnect 42a disposed directly over and adjacent to the single dielectric
Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

7
layer.” (Reply Br. 10.) According to Appellant, the interconnect 42a of
APA Fig. 2A “does not extend over gate 34a” and “Ohno shows only
interconnect layer 43 in contact hole 44 which also does not extend over gate
electrode 4.” (Id.)
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because claims 1 and 17 do
not require that the conductive interconnect extend over the gate electrode,
the claims only require that the conductive electrode be “disposed directly
over and adjacent to the single dielectric layer.” Interconnect 42a of APA
Fig. 2A is disposed directly over and adjacent to dielectric layer 30 as
required by the claims.
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s reason for combining the
teachings of the references, i.e., “to achieve high integration of
semiconductor device,” is not supported by the cited prior art (Reply Br. 10-
11). However, Ohno provides express support for the Examiner’s finding of
a reason to combine. See Ohno, col. 1, ll. 18-21 (“The local interconnection,
which does not require the interlayer insulating film and contact hole, can
easily achieve high integration of a device.”)
Appellant has not convinced us of a reversible error in the Examiner’s
rejections that rely upon APA Fig. 2A as the primary reference.
Accordingly, we sustain rejections A-D for the reasons presented above.
Rejections E-H
Turning to the rejections relying upon APA Fig. 2B as evidence of
obviousness, it is the Examiner’s position that the dielectric layer (30) and
dielectric layer (40) of that prior art embodiment are integral together and
“considered as a single layer” (Supp. Ans. 7). According to the Examiner,
“‘single’ is not limited to a fabrication of part from two single dielectric
Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

8
layer, but is inclusive of other means for maintaining layers fixed together as
a single layer; moreover, use of one piece construction instead of reference
structure is matter of obvious engineering choice.” (Supp. Ans. 7.)
For the reasons presented by Appellant in the Reply Brief, the
Examiner’s position is not tenable (Reply Br. 14-15). The two layers are
separate distinct layers that must be fabricated separately in order to separate
the shared contact 32s from the metal interconnect region 42a (Spec. ¶
0008). The two layers (30 and 40) are not a “single dielectric layer” within
the meaning of claims 1 and 17.
All of the rejections relying upon APA Fig. 2B contain the defect
discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain any of Rejections E-H.

CONCLUSION
We sustain the following rejections:
A. The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over APA Fig. 2A in view of Christensen and further in
view of Ohno;
B. The rejection of claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over APA Fig. 2A in view of Christensen and Ohno further in view
of Kim;
C. The rejection of claims 10-14 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over APA Fig. 2A in view of Christensen, Ohno, and further in
view of Oh; and
D. The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over APA Fig. 2A in view of Christensen, Ohno, Oh, and further in
view of Cheng;
Appeal 2012-000928
Application 11/064,586

9
We do not sustain the following rejections:
E. The rejection of claims 1-8, 17-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over APA Fig. 2B in view of Christensen;
F. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
APA Fig. 2B in view of Christensen and further in view of Kim;
G. The rejection of claims 10-14 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over APA Fig. 2B in view of Christensen and further in view of Oh;
or
H. The rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over APA Fig. 2B in view of Christensen, Oh, and further in view
of Cheng.
DECISION
Because we do not sustain the rejection the Examiner applied to claim
7 (Rejection E), the Examiner’s decision is affirm-in-part.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc