Ex Parte Takada

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13478211 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

% United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/478,211 05/23/2012 Yorio TAKADA LL11P00837US0 9720
36491 7590 09/05/2017
Knn7ler T aw firm in
EXAMINER
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
ZARNEKE, DAVID A
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
docket @ kunzlerlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YORIO TAKADA
Appeal 2016-006827
Application 13/478,211
Technology Center 2800
Before PETER F. KRATZ, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1,3,4, and 14—20 of
Application 13/478,211 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(April 8, 2015) 2—5. Appellant1 seeks reversal of these rejections pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 PS4 Luxco S.A.R.L. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006827
Application 13/478,211
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to certain aspects of
semiconductor fabrication. Spec. 1. Some fabrication techniques require
one to planarize the surface of a semiconductor device. One method of
planarization is chemical mechanical polishing (“CMP”). Id. CMP is
sensitive to the pattern density of the surface to be polished. Id. at 2.
Nonfunctional wiring patterns (referred to as “dummy patterns”) may be
used to optimize pattern density for CMP. Id.
Claim 1 is representative of the pending claims and is reproduced
below:
1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
a wiring pattern formed on a wiring region;
dummy patterns formed on a dummy region; and
a margin region being free from the wiring pattern and
the dummy patterns, the margin region having a substantially
constant width between the wiring region and the dummy
region,
wherein the dummy region includes a first region
extending in a first direction, and a second region extending in
a second direction different from the first direction, and
wherein the dummy patterns in the first region and the
dummy patterns in the second region have a rectangular shape
in which a longitudinal direction thereof is arranged in the first
region and the second region, respectively.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal 2016-006827
Application 13/478,211
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection:
Claims 1,3,4, and 14—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Hirabayashi (US 2008/0179754 Al, pub. July 31, 2008). Final
Act. 2—5.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1,3,4, and 14—20 as
obvious over Hirabayashi. Id. at 2-5. Appellant asserts that the rejection is
erroneous for several reasons.
First, Appellant asserts that Hirabayashi does not teach or suggest a
“margin region having a substantially constant width between the wiring
region and the dummy region” as required by claims 1 and 14. Appeal
Br. 6. Appellant asserts that none of Hirabayashi’s figures show a margin
region of constant width nor does Hirabayashi discuss the space between the
wiring pattern and dummy pattern in its specification. Id. at 6—7.
The Examiner finds that Figure 8b of Hirabayashi depicts a margin
region of substantially constant width. Answer 2. Figure 8b of Hirabayashi
is reproduced below:
lid
E3 E3
a E3
o a
£3 £3
E3 E3
a m
CTE3SC3E3E3C3G3Ca
[ jQ £*3 E3 {3 Q3
....................................................|................-
3
2
Hirabayashi’s Figure 8(b) depicts wiring pattern 2
and a number of dummy patterns 3.
3
Appeal 2016-006827
Application 13/478,211
The Examiner finds that there is only a “slight variation” between the
width of the horizontally oriented space between wiring pattern 2 and
dummy patterns 3 and the width of the vertically oriented space. Answer 2.
The Examiner further determines that the claim limitation “the margin
region having a substantially constant width” does not require that the width
be the same on both axes. Id.
Review of the Examiner’s determination that “the margin region
having a substantially constant width” does not require that the width be the
same on both axes requires us to construe the scope of the term “margin
region.” During examination, claim terms must be given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re ICON
Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the
Examiner determines that “margin region” may refer to either the
horizontally oriented or vertically oriented space between the wiring pattern
and dummy patterns of Hirabayashi. Answer 2—3. Appellant does not
address this argument either in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. Given this
lack of argument and according the term its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we determine that “margin
region” may describe the horizontally oriented or vertically oriented space
between the wiring pattern and dummy patterns of a semiconductor device.
It need not include every space adjacent to a wiring region.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s finding that Hirabayashi
teaches a “margin region having a substantially constant width between the
wiring region and the dummy region," as required by claims 1 and 14.
As a second argument, Appellant argues that Hirabayashi fails to
teach dummy patterns having a “rectangular shape in which a longitudinal
direction thereof is arranged in the first region and the second region,
4
Appeal 2016-006827
Application 13/478,211
respectively.” Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant argues that one skilled
in the art would construe “longitudinal” to mean “placed or running
lengthwise” while the rectangles of Hirabayashi all have their longer side
oriented horizontally. Reply 3^4. We reproduce the relevant limitation in
full for reference:
wherein the dummy region includes a first region extending in a
first direction, and a second region extending in a second
direction different from the first direction, and
wherein the dummy patterns in the first region and the dummy
patterns in the second region have a rectangular shape in which
a longitudinal direction thereof is arranged in the first region
and the second region, respectively.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that the term “longitudinal direction” is not
defined and that the limitation requires only “that a side having a length be
along the first and second direction.” Answer 3.
As written, the claim requires only that the longitudinal direction of
the rectangles be “arranged in the first region and the second region,
respectively.” Even accepting Appellant’s proffered definition of
“longitudinal,” arguendo, the claim does not require that the longitudinal
direction be arranged in any particular way, such as perpendicular or parallel
to some other direction. It merely requires that the longitudinal direction be
“arranged in the first region and second region.”
Accordingly, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s
finding that Hirabayashi teaches dummy patterns in a first region and the
dummy patterns in a second region having a rectangular shape in which a
longitudinal direction thereof is arranged in the first region and the second
region, respectively.
5
Appeal 2016-006827
Application 13/478,211
Appellant’s third argument is styled “Hirabayashi does not teach or
suggest a space between the arrangement of the dummy patterns having a
substantially constant width.” Appeal Br. 8 (subheading A.3). Appellant’s
argument seems to be that the width of the margin region (between wiring
pattern and dummy pattern) of Hirabayashi is not “substantially” constant
because of the criticality of the arrangement of the dummy patterns. This
argument is moot in view of our construction of the term “margin region,”
supra.
The Examiner additionally asserts that Appellant fails to present any
unique argument in support of the patentability of claim 14. Answer 4.
Rather, all argument in Appellant’s opening brief is directed to claim 1.
Accordingly, the Examiner determines, any unique argument in support of
claim 14 should be considered waived. Id. In response, Appellant
essentially agrees, stating that “Appellant has applied the same arguments to
Claim 14 that are applied to Claim 1.” Nor does Appellant seek to make a
showing of good cause as to why such arguments were not raised in the
Appeal Brief. Accordingly, any argument unique to claim 14 in Appellant’s
Reply is new argument and will not be considered. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal
brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present
appeal”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (requiring a showing of good cause as to
why a new argument should be considered).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, and 14—20 as obvious
over Hirabayashi are affirmed.
6
Appeal 2016-006827
Application 13/478,211
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7