Ex Parte Schulze et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201612640974 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/640,974 12/17/2009 25281 7590 06/02/2016 DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA FIFTH STREET TOWERS 100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2250 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hans-Joachim Schulze 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. I434.238.101/IFV140US 9738 EXAMINER SHAMSUZZAMAN, MOHAMMED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2897 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): USPTO.PA TENTS@dbclaw.com dmorris@dbclaw.com DBCLA W-Docket@dbclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HANS-JOACHIM SCHULZE, HELMUT STRACK, and HANS WEBER Appeal2014-008384 Application 12/640,974 Technology Center 2800 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1 and 3-25. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Infineon Technologies Austria AG, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 21, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed August 1, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed June 3, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed July 31, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed December 17, 2009, "Spec.") for their respective Appeal2014-008384 Application 12/640,974 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention is directed to a semiconductor component having an oxide layer arranged between first and second semiconductor regions to form corresponding first and second interfaces therewith. The oxide layer has a chlorine concentration having a first maximum in the region of the first interface and second maximum in the region of the second interface. See Abstract. Claims 1, 7, 12, 16, and 25 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and some formatting added: 1. A semiconductor component, comprising: a first semiconductor region and a second semiconductor region; a thermally grown oxide layer arranged between the first and second semiconductor region, the first semiconductor region and the oxide layer forming a first semiconductor oxide interface, and the second semiconductor region and the oxide iayer forming a second semiconductor-oxide interface; and wherein the oxide layer has a chlorine concentration, the chlorine concentration having a first maximum in the region of the first semiconductor oxide interface, a second maximum in the region of the second semiconductor-oxide interface, and a minimum less than the first maximum and the second maximum in between the first semiconductor- oxide interface and the second semiconductor-oxide interface, wherein the chlorine concentration in the first and second maximum region is between 1019 cm-3 and 2·1021 cm and wherein the oxide layer is arranged in and completely fills a trench of a semiconductor body between the first and second semiconductor regions. details. 2 Appeal2014-008384 Application 12/640,974 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Burnham Pfirsch Tanaka Ohnuma US 2005/0112888 Al US 2007 /0023830 Al US 2009/0096006 Al US 7,858,495 B2 The claims stand rejected as follows: May 26, 2005 Feb. 1, 2007 Apr. 16, 2009 Dec. 28, 2010 1. Claims 1, 3-7, and 11-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pfirsch and Ohnuma. Final Act. 2-6; 8-10. 2. Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Pfirsch, Ohnuma, and Tanaka. Final Act. 8. 3. Claims 19-23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Pfirsch, Ohnuma, and Burnham. Final Act. 10-12. 4. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Pfirsch, Ohnuma, Burnham, and Tanaka. Final Act. 12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1 and 3-25 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited 3 Appeal2014-008384 Application 12/640,974 combination of references. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 2-12. ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us is whether the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Pfirsch and Ohnuma teaches or suggests wherein the claimed chlorinated oxide layer is arranged in and completely fills a trench of a semiconductor body between the first and second semiconductor regions within the meaning of Appellants' independent Claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of independent Claims 7, 12, 16, and 25? CLAIMS 1, 3-7, AND 11-18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PFIRSCH AND 0HNUMA Chlorinated trench oxide With respect to independent Claims 1, 7, and 12, Appellants contend the Examiner finds Pfirsch fails to teach a trench filled with the claimed chlorinated oxide. App. Br. 8. Appellants further contend the chlorinated oxide of Ohnuma is taught, not as a trench, but as a layer between two silicon layers of a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate. Id. Appellants argue the person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Ohnuma with the teachings of Pfirsch because Ohnuma teaches that chlorinated oxide is a solution to the problem of 4 Appeal2014-008384 Application 12/640,974 bonding a single crystal semiconductor to a semiconductor substrate, a situation that does not arise in the Pfirsch process. App. Br. 9. The Examiner's Answer finds the claims recite a chlorinated oxide having two peaks in the chlorine concentration, applied as a layer between two semiconductor regions. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Ohnuma teaches the claimed chlorinated oxide as a layer between two semiconductor regions. Ans. 5. The Examiner applies Pfirsch merely to teach the claimed geometry (an oxide-filled trench) as known in the art. Ans. 4. Moreover, the Examiner has articulated persuasive reasoning with a rational underpinning for an artisan of ordinary skill to have modified Pfirsch's oxide layer with Ohnuma's chlorine concentrations to improve adhesiveness and reduce bonding defects. Final Act. 5 (citing Ohnuma, col. 2, 11. 30-35); Ans. 6. Appellants state in a conclusory manner that "[n]one of the[] problems addressed by the introduction of chlorine into the SOI substrate manufacturing method of Ohnuma occur when an oxide layer is produced in a trench between first and second semiconductor regions," as in Pfirsch, but present no persuasive evidence or explanation to support that argument. See App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3. Bi-modal chlorine distribution Appellants contend Pfirsch fails to teach an oxide having a bi-modal chlorine distribution. App. Br. 8. Appellants acknowledge the Examiner cites Ohnuma for such teaching. Id. Appellants' Reply admits Ohnuma teaches an oxide having a bi-modal chlorine concentration. However, Appellants contend the concentration ranges, enumerated in the claims, are not taught by Ohnuma. Reply Br. 2. We find Appellants raise this issue for the first time in the Reply Brief. We decline to reach the merits of these arguments because arguments raised for 5 Appeal2014-008384 Application 12/640,974 the first time in the reply brief are waived because they are untimely, and Appellants have not demonstrated any "good cause" for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012). Dependent claims Appellants do not present further arguments for the dependent claims. App. Br. 9. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting Claims 1, 3-7, and 11-18 as obvious. CLAIMS 8-10: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PFIRSCH, 0HNUMA, AND TANAKA Appellants contend dependent Claims 8-10 are patentable for the reasons advanced in favor of independent Claim 7. App. Br. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting Claims 8-10. CLAIMS 19-23 AND 25: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PFIRSCH, 0HNUMA, AND BURNHAM Appellants contend dependent Claims 19-23 are patentable for the reasons advanced in favor of independent Claim 16. App. Br. 10. Appellants further contend independent Claim 25 is patentable for the same reasons as advanced in favor of independent Claims 1, 7, 12, and 16. Id. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting Claims 19-23 and 25. CLAIM 24: OBVIOUSNESS OVER PFIRSCH, 0HNUMA, BURNHAM, AND TANAKA Appellants contend dependent Claim 24 is patentable for the reasons advanced in favor of independent Claim 16. App. Br. 10. In view of the 6 Appeal2014-008384 Application 12/640,974 foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting Claim 24. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1 and 3-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation