Ex Parte Sommer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

11745098 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111745,098 0510712007
38881 7590
Infineon Technologies AG
c/o Schiff Hardin LLP
666 Fifth A venue
Suite 1700
NEW YORK, NY 10103
02/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Sommer
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.
42801-0121 (S0193.0123) 1183
EXAMINER
HAN, JONATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
patents-NY@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL SOMMER
Appeal2014-002788
Application 11/745,098
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection
of claims 1-30 and 32-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
McAllister Bums, Jr. et al. 1 in view of Lee2 and Kikuchi et al. 3 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 US 5,929,477, issued July 27, 1999 ("Bums").
2 US 5,041,886, issued August 20, 1991 ("Lee").
3 US 5,466,961, issued November 14, 1995 ("Kikuchi").
Appeal2014-002788
Application 11/745,098
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated April 22, 2013 ("App. Br."). The limitations at issue are
italicized.
1. A memory cell, comprising:
a substrate comprising a protruding portion, the protruding
portion comprising a sidewall, a bottom, an upper doped region
connected to a bit line and a lower region being closer to the bottom
of the protruding portion than the upper region, and the protruding
portion extending from a lower region of the substrate to the surface
of the substrate;
a substrate contact extending from a surface of the substrate
into the substrate to the lower region of the substrate;
a selection transistor having an active region configured to
control a current flow between the lower region of the protruding
portion and the substrate contact, wherein the active region extends in
at least one of the lower region of the protruding portion and the lower
region of the substrate; and
a wordline portion, which is separated from the selection
transistor, a first insulator near the wordline portion, a floating gate
near the wordline portion and a second insulator between the floating
gate and the side wall of the protruding portion, wherein the wordline
portion, which acts as a control gate for the protruding portion, and
the floating gate are arranged, so that a channel is generateable in the
protruding portion near the side wall of the protruding portion
between the upper doped region of the protruding portion and the
lower region of the protruding portion.
App. Br. 11 (emphasis added).
B. DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds Bums discloses a memory cell. Ans. 3.4 The Examiner,
however, finds Bums does not disclose that the memory cell comprises a selection
transistor as recited in the claims on appeal. Ans. 4, 14, 19. The Examiner turns to
4 Examiner's Answer dated October 28, 2013.
2
Appeal2014-002788
Application 11/745,098
Lee for this element and finds that Lee discloses "a selection transistor [30]
configured to control a current flow between the lower region of the protruding
portion and the substrate contact (see Figure 4, Column 3, lines 5-24)." Ans. 4; see
also Ans. 15, 19-20.
The Appellant argues that selection transistor 30 of Lee is part of the
wordline. Thus, the Appellant argues that the wordline portion of Lee is not
separated from the selection transistor as recited in the claims on appeal. Reply
Br. 4 (citing Lee Figs. 3, 4 and col. 3, 11. 6-42);5 see also App. Br. 7. 6 The
Examiner does not address the Appellant's argument in the Examiner's Answer.
The Appellant's argument is supported by the record. The memory cell
recited in claim 1 comprises, inter alia, "a selection transistor" and "a wordline
portion, which is separated from the selection transistor."7 App. Br. 11. Lee
expressly discloses that "word line (W /L) includes the first line 20, provided as a
control gate in the cell region, and the second line 30 provided as a select gate in
the cell region" and "[t]he first line 20 and second line 30 are interconnected on the
field region 70." Lee, col. 3, 11. 10-14 (emphasis added). Thus, the evidence of
record establishes that the wordline portion of Lee is not separated from the
5 Reply Brief dated December 23, 2013.
6 In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that "Lee does not show a selection
transistor as defined in amended independent claims 1, 27, and 35, wherein the
selection transistor is electrically separated from the wordline portion." App. Br. 7
(emphasis added). The separation recited in claims 1, 27, and 35 is not limited to
an electrical separation.
7 Similarly, the memory cell recited in independent claim 27 comprises, inter alia,
"a wordline portion of the first memory cell, which is separated from the selection
transistor" and "a wordline portion of the second memory cell, which is separated
from the selection transistor." App. Br. 17. Independent claim 35 recites a method
for producing a memory cell comprising, inter alia, the step of "producing a
wordline portion, which is separated from the selection transistor." App. Br. 21.
3
Appeal2014-002788
Application 11/745,098
selection transistor as recited in the independent claims on appeal (i.e., claims 1,
27, 35). For this reason, the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-30 and 32-39 is not
sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
4