10920808 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2009)

Ex Parte Seidl et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 14, 2009

10920808 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HARALD SEIDL, ANNETTE SANGER, STEPHAN KUDELKA, and MARTIN GUTSCHE ____________ Appeal 2009-001210 Application 10/920,808 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: September 14, 2009 ____________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, KARL D. EASTHOM and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 12 to 21, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appellants have invented a trench capacitor formed in a semiconductor substrate that comprises an active region in the lower portion Appeal 2009-001210 Application 10/920,808 2 of a trench in the semiconductor substrate, and a collar region that extends from the surface of the substrate to the active region. An outer electrode is formed in the active region in the substrate. A dielectric layer is formed only in the active region, and an insulation layer is formed in the collar region. A separating layer is provided on the dielectric layer in the active region, and thereafter an inner electrode is formed in the trench. The inner electrode extends over the active region and the collar region (Fig. 1D; Spec. 9, 10; Abstract). Claim 12 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as follows: 12. A trench capacitor oriented to a hole trench introduced in a semiconductor substrate, comprising: an active region of the hole trench reaching into the semiconductor substrate and a collar region arranged between a substrate surface and the active region; an outer electrode provided in sections that adjoin the hole trench in the active region of the semiconductor substrate; a dielectric layer lining the hole trench only in the active region and with an insulation layer in sections in the collar region; an inner electrode in sections being provided in the interior of the hole trench; a separating layer provided on the dielectric layer in the active region; and wherein the inner electrode extends over the collar region and the active region. Appeal 2009-001210 Application 10/920,808 3 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gambino US 6,194,755 B1 Feb. 27, 2001 Gutsche US 2002/0187605 A1 Dec. 12, 2002 The Examiner rejected claims 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) based upon the teachings of Gambino. The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Gambino and Gutsche. Appellants argue inter alia (App. Br. 8) that the Examiner improperly rejected the claims based upon an intermediate processing stage of the trench capacitor (i.e., Figure 1(d)) in Gambino as opposed to the final processing stage of the trench capacitor (i.e., Figure 1(g)) in Gambino. ISSUES Anticipation Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by finding that the intermediate processing stage of the trench capacitor in Gambino describes all of the trench capacitor structure set forth in the claims on appeal? Obviousness Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by finding that the applied references teach or would have suggested the trench capacitor structure of claim 18? Appeal 2009-001210 Application 10/920,808 4 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) 1. The Examiner finds (Final Rej. 2) that Figure 1(d) of Gambino describes all of the trench capacitor structure set forth in claims 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 24, and 25. 2. The trench capacitor shown in Figure 1(d) of Gambino is a finished trench capacitor; however, it possesses the series resistance problem described in the admitted prior art of Gambino (col. 1, ll. 25 to 34). 3. The additional processing steps in Figures 1(e) to 1(g) of Gambino form the refractory salicide layer 32 (col. 4, l. 32-col. 5, l. 15) substantially reducing the series resistance problem in the trench capacitor (col. 5, ll. 17 to 26). 4. The final trench capacitor structure in Figure 1(g) of Gambino is ideally suited for DRAM memory cells (col. 5, ll. 27 to 34). PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation Anticipation is established when the applied reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Appeal 2009-001210 Application 10/920,808 5 Obviousness The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, and the Appellants have the burden of presenting a rebuttal to the prima facie case. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). ANALYSIS Anticipation As indicated supra (FF 1), the Examiner finds that Figure 1(d) of Gambino describes all of the claimed trench capacitor structure set forth in claims 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 24, and 25. Appellants argue (App. Br. 8) that the Examiner improperly rejected the claims based upon an intermediate processing stage of the trench capacitor (i.e., Figure 1(d)) in Gambino as opposed to the final processing stage of the trench capacitor (i.e., Figure 1(g)). The trench capacitor shown in Figure 1(d) of Gambino is a finished trench capacitor, albeit one with a series resistance problem (FF 2). The further processing steps in Figures 1(e) to 1(g) of Gambino serve to substantially reduce the series resistance problem found in the trench capacitor in Figure 1(d) (FF 3). The final trench capacitor structure in Figure 1(g) of Gambino constitutes an improvement of the already finished product of Figure 1(d), and it is ideally suited for DRAM memory cells (FF 4). Thus, the anticipation rejection is sustained because Figure 1(d) of Gambino shows all of the limitations of claims 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 24, and 25. See Atlas Powder Co., 190 F.3d at 1347; Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1478-79. Appeal 2009-001210 Application 10/920,808 6 Obviousness The obviousness rejection of claim 18 is sustained because Appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for these claims apart from the arguments presented for claims 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 24, and 25. See Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. CONCLUSION OF LAW Anticipation Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that the intermediate processing stage of the trench capacitor in Gambino describes all of the trench capacitor structure set forth in the claims on appeal. Obviousness Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred by finding that the applied references teach or would have suggested the trench capacitor structure of claim 18. ORDER The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 12 to 17, 19 to 21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is affirmed. Appeal 2009-001210 Application 10/920,808 7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED KIS DICKE, BILLIG & CZAJA FIFTH STREET TOWERS 100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2250 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402