Ex Parte Sodhi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2013

10384897 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RITU SODHI, HAMILTON LU, and MILTON J. BODEN
____________

Appeal 2010-000177
Application 10/384,897
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000177
Application 10/384,897

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-13, which are all the claims remaining in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A trench type MOSgated device comprising a silicon substrate; a
plurality of spaced trenches extending perpendicularly into said substrate; a
gate oxide lining the walls of said trenches; a common gate terminal;
conductive polysilicon gates filing the interior of each of said trenches;
source regions adjacent each trench; a source electrode disposed directly on
and in direct contact with said source regions; an insulation cap over each
gate electrode and extending over and disposed on at least a portion of each
adjacent source region; and a thin conductive silicide layer overlying and in
contact with the top of each of said polysilicon gates, said thin conductive
silicide layers being connected together by at least one coplanar runner; the
lateral gate resistance of said polysilicon gates being reduced by said silicide
layers.

Prior Art
Houston US 2002/0036347 A1 Mar. 28, 2002
Hshieh US 6,674,124 B2 Jan. 6, 2004

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hshieh and Houston.
Claims 2, 8, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hshieh, Houston, and Appellants’ admitted prior
art.
Appeal 2010-000177
Application 10/384,897

3

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 10, 11, and 13
The Examiner finds that Figure 12C of Houston teaches “thin
conductive silicide layers being connected together by at least one coplanar
runner” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4. Appellants contend that the
interconnect 1220 shown in Figure 12C of Houston is deposited atop gates
1210. Appellants conclude that Houston does not teach a coplanar runner
connecting the silicide layers residing atop the polysilicon gate electrodes.
App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner interprets “coplanar” as
encompassing lying or acting in the same plane, and concludes that the
interconnect 1220 of Houston, which connects gates 1210, is a “coplanar
runner” within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 7.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact made by the Examiner in
the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner
in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants have not provided arguments for
separate patentability of claims 4-6, 10, 11, and 13, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 8, 9, and 12
Appellants have not presented arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2, 8, 9, and 12. We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 8, 9, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2010-000177
Application 10/384,897

4
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Hshieh and Houston is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 8, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hshieh, Houston, and Appellants’ admitted prior art
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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

babc