Ex Parte Nakamura

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 31, 2003

09122094 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 31, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KATSUMI NAKAMURA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0647
Application No. 09/122,094
____________
HEARD: March 20, 2002
____________
Before BARRETT, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Appellant's invention relates to a semiconductor device
having a trench. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A semiconductor device comprising:
a semiconductor substrate having main surface;
a trench having an opening on said main surface and a bottom
portion in said semiconductor substrate respectively;
an insulating film being provided on an inner wall of said
trench and a portion of said main surface around said opening;
and
Appeal No. 2002-0647
Application No. 09/122,094
2
a conductive material film being provided oppositely to said
semiconductor substrate through said insulating film and having a
head portion being farther from said bottom portion of said
trench than said main surface,
an end surface of said head portion being separated from
said opening of said trench measured from said inner wall by at
least 0.2
m.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Uenishi et al. (Uenishi) 5,894,149 Apr. 13, 1999
(filed Dec. 09, 1996)
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Uenishi.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 25,
mailed October 10, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 24,
filed July 24, 2001) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 26, filed
December 10, 2001) for appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art reference, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 2.
The issue in this case essentially boils down to whether one
can rely upon the relative positions of elements in patent
drawings with no supporting disclosure in the patent
Appeal No. 2002-0647
Application No. 09/122,094
3
specification. Specifically, the examiner contends (Answer, page
3) that since Uenishi's dx is 0.2
m, and Figure 1 shows the edge
of the head of gate electrode 8 extending over a portion of
element 15, and thus further than dx from the wall of the trench,
the edge of the head is more than 0.2
m from the inner wall of
the trench, as recited in claim 1. Appellant, on the other hand,
asserts (Brief, pages 6-9) that the relative dimensions in
Uenishi's drawings are inconsistent with those disclosed, and
that, consequently, the drawings are clearly not drawn to scale
and cannot be relied upon. We have to agree with appellant.
The examiner argues (Answer, page 5) that "[t]he figures are
part of the specification, and can be relied upon as part of the
explicit teachings set forth." However, where the patentee does
not disclose that the drawings are drawn to scale, the drawings
are illustrative, not determinative. "Absent any written
description in the specification of quantitative values,
arguments based on measurement of a drawing are of little value.
In re Chitayat, 56 CCPA 1343, 408 F.2d 475, 161 USPQ 224 (1969)."
In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977).
Nowhere does Uenishi suggest that the head portion of the
gate electrode overlaps element 15. Notwithstanding the
examiner's assertions at page 7 of the Answer, none of the
horizontal dimensions shown in Figure 1, for example, have the
Appeal No. 2002-0647
Application No. 09/122,094
4
disclosed relationships with each other. Therefore, there is no
reason to believe that the horizontal length of the head portion
is drawn to scale relative to the space dx. Without a definite
overlap between the head of the gate electrode and element 15 in
Uenishi, the examiner cannot establish the claimed relative
dimensions. Thus, the examiner fails to present a prima facie
case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of the
claims.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-0647
Application No. 09/122,094
5
OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, P.C.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314