Ex Parte Omi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 22, 2011

10732511 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 22, 2011)

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.
10/732,511 12/11/2003 Tadahiro Omi 900-486 8340
23117 7590 11/22/2011
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
WARREN, MATTHEW E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TADAHIRO OMI and NAOKI UEDA
____________

Appeal 2010-001246
Application 10/732,511
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001246
Application 10/732,511

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ semiconductor device has a gate insulating film formed in
a channel, where the film is formed of silicon oxynitride with a rare gas
element at an area density of 1010 cm-2 or more in at least part of the film.
See generally Abstract; Spec. 16-17. Claim 10 is illustrative:
10. A semiconductor device comprising:
a silicon based semiconductor channel of a field effect transistor
provided with a step including a non-horizontal surface, a horizontal surface
and a connection region for connecting the non-horizontal surface and the
horizontal surface;
a gate insulating film formed in at least a part of the step; and
a gate electrode formed on the gate insulating film,
wherein the entirety or a part of the gate insulating film is formed of a
silicon oxynitride film that contains a rare gas element at a area density of
1010 cm-2 or more in at least a part of the silicon oxynitride film.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ohmi US 6,551,948 B2 Apr. 22, 2003
Hshieh US 6,777,745 B2 Aug. 17, 2004
(filed June 14, 2001)
Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (Fig. 32; Spec. 2-4) (“APA”).

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 10-14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hshieh and Ohmi. Ans. 3-5.1

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 19, 2007
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 17, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001246
Application 10/732,511

3
2. The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hshieh, Ohmi, and APA. Ans. 5-6.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HSHIEH AND OHMI
The Examiner finds that Hshieh’s semiconductor device comprises a
silicon oxynitride gate insulating film 609, and has every recited feature of
representative claim 10 except for the oxynitride containing a rare gas
element at the recited area density, but cites Ohmi for teaching this feature in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that since Ohmi forms insulation over a polysilicon
floating gate, skilled artisans would not use such a technique in Hshieh since
Hshieh’s insulating film 609 is not (1) over a floating gate, or (2) between
floating and control gates. Br. 11-12. Appellants add that since the location
of Ohmi’s insulator 202 is similar to that of Hshieh’s insulator 609, Ohmi
allegedly teaches away from using Ar and/or Kr in the recited location. Br.
12.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 10 by
finding that Hshieh and Ohmi collectively would have taught or suggested
forming all or part of a gate insulating film of a silicon oxynitride film
containing a rare gas element at a area density of 1010 cm-2 or more in at
least part of the silicon oxynitride film?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
Appeal 2010-001246
Application 10/732,511

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the disclosures to
Hshieh and Ohmi as our own. Ans. 3-4, 6-9.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 10. First, it is undisputed that
Ohmi teaches forming a silicon oxynitride insulating film containing a rare
gas element with the recited area density. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Ohmi teaches forming this film on a polysilicon material
as Appellants contend (Br. 11-12), the Examiner nonetheless emphasizes—
and we agree—that Ohmi also at least suggests forming such a film on a
silicon substrate. Ans. 7-9; FF 1. We therefore see no reason why skilled
artisans would not apply Ohmi’s technique to Hshieh’s silicon oxynitride
gate dielectric region 609 (i.e., “the gate insulating film”) as the Examiner
proposes, particularly in view of Hshieh’s underlying silicon substrate 606 in
Figure 6A as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 8. Such an enhancement merely
predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—
an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). Nor have Appellants shown that such a modification would
destroy Hshieh’s principle of operation or otherwise render it unsuitable for
its intended purpose. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We are therefore unconvinced that Ohmi teaches away from forming at least
part of Hshieh’s silicon oxynitride dielectric region with a rare gas element
having the recited area density as Appellants contend (Br. 12). Accordingly,
Appeal 2010-001246
Application 10/732,511

5
we find the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 10, and claims 11-14, 16, and 17 not separately argued
with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HSHIEH, OHMI, AND APA
The Examiner finds that Hshieh and Ohmi disclose every recited
feature of claim 15 except for the recited step surfaces and regions
corresponding to the (100), (111), and (110) planes, but cites APA as
teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious.
Ans. 5-6, 10-11.
Appellants argue that APA’s planes apply to a trench-type gate 6
which does not exist in Ohmi; therefore there is no reason to use these
planes with Ohmi’s Ar/Kr gas. Br. 12-13.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 by
finding that Hshieh, Ohmi, and APA collectively would have taught or
suggested the recited step surfaces and regions corresponding to the (100),
(111), and (110) planes?
(2) Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

Appeal 2010-001246
Application 10/732,511

6
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
2. We adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding APA, Hshieh, and
Ohmi (Ans. 5-6, 10) as they pertain to claim 15 as our own.

ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 essentially for the
reasons indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 5-6, 10-11; FF 2. Although
Appellants contend that APA’s planes are inapplicable to Ohmi (Br. 12-13),
this argument is inapposite to the Examiner’s applying APA’s teaching to
Hshieh’s trench structure. The Examiner’s point in this regard is well taken.
Ans. 10. In any event, Ohmi’s teaching that improved films can be formed
along any plane as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 10) only bolsters the
Examiner’s conclusion that providing the recited surface and region plane-
based orientations in the Hshieh/Ohmi device would have been obvious in
view of APA. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s reason to combine the
teachings of these references supported by articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 15.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10-17 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-17 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-001246
Application 10/732,511

7
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

Vsh