Ex Parte NIEH et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 29, 201712713356 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2017) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 12/713,356 02/26/2010 Chun-Feng NIEH T5057-Y201 4537 22429 7590 12/01/2017 HAUPTMAN HAM, LLP 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER STEVENSON, ANDRE C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2816 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/01/2017 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): docketing @ ipfirm. com pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com EAnastasio @ IPFirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHUN-FENG NIEH, MAO-RONG YEH, CHUN HSIUNG TSAI, and CHII-MING WU Appeal 2017-000026 Application 12/713,356 Technology Center 2800 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JULIA HEANEY, and MERRELL C. CASHION JR., Administrative Patent Judges. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—16 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over at least the basic combination of Nandakumar (US 7,678,637 B2; Mar. 16, 2010) and Hatem (US 8,012,843 B2; Sept. 6, 2011).2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, LTD. (Appeal Br. 2). 2 The Examiner applies additional prior art to various dependent claims as well as independent claim 19 (Final Action 5—14; listed at Appeal Br. 6). Appeal 2017-000026 Application 12/713,356 We AFFIRM. Claims 1 and 19 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method, comprising: performing a pocket implantation process on a substrate having a gate stack; performing a co-implanted ion implantation process on the substrate at a temperature less than room temperature to form an amorphous region in the substrate without performing a pre-amorphisation implantation process; and performing a lightly doped source/drain implantation process on the amorphous region. 19. A method of forming MOS transistors comprising: performing a pocket implantation process on a substrate having a gate stack thereon at a temperature not less than about room temperature; performing a co-implanted ion implantation process to form amorphous regions in the substrate, wherein the co- implanted ion implantation process is performed at a temperature ranging between about—100 °C and about 0°C; performing a lightly doped source/drain implantation process on the substrate at a temperature not less than about room temperature; and forming source and drain regions in the substrate, adjacent the gate stack, wherein a pre-amorphisation implantation process is not performed before or after the steps of pocket implantation or lightly doped source/drain implantation; wherein performing the co-implanted ion implantation process includes implanting the substrate with implant including nitrogen, fluorine, carbon, or combinations thereof. Independent claim 9 is similar to claim 1 except claim 9 recites “at a 2 Appeal 2017-000026 Application 12/713,356 temperature less than about 0 °C” instead of “at a temperature less than room temperature” (Appeal Br. 15, 16 (Claims App’x)). Appellants rely solely upon the arguments made for claim 1 for all the other claims (Appeal Br. 12, 13). ANALYSIS Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We add the following primarily for emphasis. 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 7 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). Appellants focus their arguments on claim 1 (Appeal Br. 7—12). Appellants first argue that while Hatem teaches pocket/halo implantation (which creates an amorphous region) may be performed before the source and drain implants, the Provisional Application of Hatem (which must be relied upon in order to predate Appellants’ filing date) does not explicitly state this and only describes implanting dopants on an already existing source and drain (Appeal Br. 9). Appellants argue Hatem’s addition of the 3 Appeal 2017-000026 Application 12/713,356 language regarding the alternative timing of the pocket/halo implantation “corroborates Appellants’ assertion that the Provisional Application neither teaches or suggests ‘performing a lightly doped source/drain implantation process on the amorphous region’” (Appeal Br. 10). Appellants additionally argue that the Examiner did not address the limitation “without performing a pre-amorphisation implantation process” (Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 7, 9). These arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection. One of ordinary skill in the art reading the Provisional Application of Hatem would have appreciated that the order of the pocket implantation and source/drain doping steps may vary, even if not explicitly stated. Appellants have not directed us to any evidence establishing that the Examiner’s position is erroneous. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946) (where a combination of prior art suggests the claimed process, reordering the steps is not patentable absent proof in the record that the order of performing the steps produces a new and unexpected result). The Examiner is de facto interpreting the claim language to encompass the process as depicted in the Provisional Application (e.g. Ans. 14) given that claim 1 does not require any specific order of steps except that the “lightly doped” implantation must be on “the amorphous region.” Claim 1 further does not detail what dopants are implanted at any of the steps. In light of this, Appellants have also not directed our attention to any persuasive reasoning or credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation that the claims encompass the applied prior art combination is unreasonable. In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (it is well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification” and if the 4 Appeal 2017-000026 Application 12/713,356 Specification does not provide a definition for claim terms, the PTO applies a broad interpretation). Further, Appellants’ Specification describes that “[a]s is known in the art, more than one implantation may be conducted to form pocket/halo regions” (Spec. 17, 24). The Specification also describes that the source/drain regions may be formed by “conventional implantation processes” after the light doping source/drain implantation process (e.g., Spec. H 31, 28). This indicates that complete formation of the source/drain regions may occur in multiple steps. Additionally, the Examiner did address the “without performing a pre- amorphisation . . . process” in the rejection of independent claim 19 (which, similar to claims 1 and 9, recites this limitation) finding that Hatem teaches this (e.g., Final Action 6; see also Ans. 4)3. Appellants’ argument that Hatem’s silence cannot be taken as suggesting this negative limitation is not persuasive, especially since Hatem states that the cold implantation creates the desired amorphous region (e.g., Hatem, Abstract; Provisional Application 5:7—15). One of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated that a pre-implant amorphisation (PIA) step such as that of Nandakumar was unnecessary when a cold implantation step as exemplified in Hatem was performed. Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s de facto determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would have performed a cold temperature ion implantation process to create an amorphous region as exemplified in Hatem (Provisional Application) after and/or before a source/drain implantation. 3 It is, therefore, harmless error that the Examiner did not explicitly address this limitation in claim 1 as asserted by Appellants (e.g., Reply Br. 7, 9). 5 Appeal 2017-000026 Application 12/713,356 KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (2007) (the predictable use of known prior art elements performing the same functions they have been known to perform is normally obvious; the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results); Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the “inferences and creative steps,” as well as routine steps, that an ordinary artisan would employ). Additionally, independent claim 19 does not contain any limitation as to the order of its steps (except for the negative limitation on pre- amorphisation) and does not limit performing the lightly doped source/implantation process on the amorphous substrate as argued with respect to claim 1; claim 19 merely recites “performing a lightly doped source/drain implantation process on the substrate.” Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). For this additional reason, the § 103 rejection of claim 19 is affirmed. Consequently, after consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of all the claims on appeal for the reasons given above and presented by the Examiner. DECISION The Examiner’s § 103 rejections are affirmed. 6 Appeal 2017-000026 Application 12/713,356 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation