Ex Parte Peidous

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2013

11781664 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte IGOR PEIDOUS
____________

Appeal 2010-010225
Application 11/781,664
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-010225
Application 11/781,664

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing claims 11-20. Appeal Brief 2. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to “the enhancement of transistor carrier
mobility by employing a variable thickness silicon on insulator film.”
Specification 5.

Illustrative Claim
Claim 11: An integrated circuit comprising:
a substrate including a support structure, a dielectric layer having a
substantially continuous planar bottom surface forming an interface with
said support structure, and a variable thickness film;
a recess within a variable thickness film bottom surface, the recess
filled with the dielectric layer;
a gate over the variable thickness film; and
a channel and a source/drain within the variable thickness film.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Xiang (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number
2006/0099752 A1; published May 11, 2006). Answer 4-7.

Appeal 2010-010225
Application 11/781,664

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief.
Appellant concludes that, “[T]he final semiconductor structure
disclosed by Xiang comprises distinct semiconductor bodies 402 and 206,
each having a different thickness, rather than the single continuous variable
thickness film disclosed and claimed by Appellant.” Appeal Brief 6-7.
However, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
the claims. The Examiner finds that claim 11 recites a variable thickness
film not a single continuous variable thickness film. Answer 8. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings. Claim 11 does not require that the variable
thickness film be continuous.
Appellant contends that Xiang fails to anticipate the claimed invention
because:
[N]either the top nor bottom surface of channel layer 206
can be characterized as continuous with the respective top
or bottom surfaces of source/drain bodies 402, indicating
that although the lateral arrangement of channel region
206 and source/drain bodies is adjoining, channel region
206 is interposed between source/drain bodies 402, rather
than forming a continuous body.

Appeal Brief 8.
Appellant further contends:
Appeal 2010-010225
Application 11/781,664

4
[T]he disclosure provided by Appellant specifies that the
term “variable thickness film” is defined as a single
semiconductor layer, which as shown by Figure 1 of the
present application, for example, is a continuous body
despite varying in thickness. See, e.g., p. 5, ¶ [0033] and
Figure 1 of the present application. Consequently, no
reasonable interpretation of Xiang can conclude that its
teachings disclose or suggest formation of the variable
thickness film disclosed by Appellant, defined by
Appellant's disclosure, and specifically required by
independent claim 11.
Id.
However, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claims. Appellant is improperly reading limitations from the
detailed description into the claim. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[A]lthough the specification often
describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly
warned against confining the claims to those embodiments. In particular, we
have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single
embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to
that embodiment.”).
The Examiner finds that claim 11 recites a variable thickness film and
does not recites that the top or bottom surface of the channel layer is
continuous with respect to the top or bottom surface of the source/drain
bodies. Answer 10. We again, agree with the Examiner’s findings because
the claim does not require such an arrangement as argued by Appellant.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 because of
the reasons stated above. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
12-20, not separately argued, for the reasons stated above.
Appeal 2010-010225
Application 11/781,664

5

DECISION
The rejection of claims 11-20 is affirmed.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl