Ex Parte TAY

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2013

13011864 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HIOK NAM TAY
____________________

Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, DEBORAH KATZ, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1

1
Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed January 10, 2013
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 20, 2013 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 20, 2013 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed July
11, 2012 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed January 22, 2011
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to an image sensor with an array of
photodiode pixels. See Spec., p. 5, ll. 2-3. At least one of the photodiodes
pixels includes a reflective element that is adjacent to a routing wire and
reflects light onto a photo-absorption region of the photodiode. Id., p. 5, ll.
3-9, and Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of Appellant’s invention, and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A method for forming an image sensor that
includes a pixel array across a substrate, the pixel array
comprising a photo-absorption region disposed under a region
transparent to light, the method comprising:

forming a dielectric barrier on the substrate; and,

forming a contact on the dielectric barrier and insulated
from the substrate by the dielectric barrier, the contact having a
light-reflective lateral side facing and bounding the region.

Evidence Considered
Lee US 2007/0052053 A1 Mar. 8, 2007

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lee. Final Rej. 2.

Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

3

Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
as being anticipated by Lee. In particular, the issue turns on:
(1) Whether Lee discloses “forming a contact on the dielectric
barrier and insulated from the substrate by the dielectric barrier, the contact
having a light-reflective lateral side facing and bounding the region” as
recited in Appellant’s claim 1 (emphasis added). Ans. 3-4.
(2) Whether Lee discloses that such a “contact is elongated in a
direction parallel to the light-reflective lateral side and also parallel to the
substrate” as recited in Appellant’s claim 2 (emphasis added). Ans. 5.

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Lee discloses
in FIGS. 1, 2E-2G, 4B-4C and 5:
“a method for forming an image sensor that includes a
pixel array across a substrate (100), the pixel array comprising a
photo-absorption region (102, i.e., light-receiving element)
disposed under a light transmissive region (region of
transparent layer (146) and material layer (145) directly over
light-receiving region (102)), the method comprising: forming a
dielectric barrier (106, i.e., dielectric layer) on the substrate
(100); and, forming a contact (142, i.e., reflective layer) on the
dielectric barrier (106) and insulated from the substrate (100)
by the dielectric barrier, the contact (142) having a light-
reflective lateral side facing and bounding the light transmissive
region.”

Final Rej. 2 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

4

The Examiner interprets Appellant’s claimed “contact” as
encompassing Lee’s reflective layer (142) disposed on a dielectric barrier
(106) and insulated from a substrate (100), as shown in FIG. 1 and described
as:
“[T]he reflective layer 142 is, for example, a conductive
layer. The material of the conductive layer is, for example,
copper, aluminum, tungsten or other appropriate conductive
materials. In particular, the reflective layer 142 is, for example,
a tubular conductive spacer structure, or it is formed from a
plurality of tubular conductive structures coupling together.”

Final Rej., page 3 (citing Lee, ¶[[0039]).
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s claim interpretation as being overly
broad and, if permitted to stand, would contradict the ordinary and
customary meaning of that term as understood by those skilled in the art.
App. Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellant contends that the term “contact” is
well known in the semiconductor industry and has a specific meaning
understood by those skilled in the art, as:
“a part of a metallic interconnect system of a
semiconductor integrated circuit. The term contact refers to a
conductive element formed in a vertical hole made in a layer of
dielectric formed on the substrate before any part of the metal
interconnect system is laid, commonly known as pre-metal
dielectric (PMD) or first dielectric layer, wherein the lowest
layer of metallic horizontal interconnect wires of the metallic
interconnect system, commonly known as the first metal layer,
is subsequently laid on this layer of dielectric.”

Id., at 10-11 (emphasis added).
As evidence of the established meaning of the term “contact” as is
known in the semiconductor industry, Appellant cites several textbooks,
including: (1) Silicon VLSI Technology: Fundamentals, Practice and
Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

5

Modeling by Plummer, Deal and Griffin, Figures 11-1, 11-2 and page 682
(Exhibit #1); (2) CMOS: Circuit Design, Layout, and Simulation by R.
Jacob Baker, Figure 7.77 (Exhibit #2); (3) VLSI Technology by Wai-Kai
Chen, Figure 2.18 (Exhibit #3); and (4) Introduction to VLSI Systems: A
Logic, Circuit, and System Perspective by Ming-Bo Lin, Figures 3.37 – 3:40
(Exhibit #4). For example:
Exhibit #1: Figures 11-1 and 11-2 of Silicon VLSI
Technology: Fundamentals, Practice and Modeling by
Plummer, Deal and Griffin, on page 682 show that a contact is
embedded in the first level dielectric that lies below the lowest
among all the global metal interconnects;

Exhibit #2: Figure 7.77 of CMOS: Circuit Design,
Layout, and Simulation by R. Jacobs Baker, shows that the
contact is embedded in the first level dielectric (also known as
pre-metal dielectric, PMD), above which Metal1 and Metal2
interconnects are disposed;

Exhibit #3: Figure 2.18 of VLSI Technology by Wai-Kai
Chen, shows that the contact (“Contact filling”) is embedded in
the first level dielectric that is under the lowest metal
interconnect (“1
st
metal”) as well as below the second metal
interconnect layer (“2
nd
metal”); and

Exhibit #4: Figures 3.37 – 3:40 from page 171 of
Introduction to VLSI Systems: A Logic, Circuit, and System
Perspective by Ming-Bo Lin, provide a cross-sectional view of
how contacts are formed in the first level dielectric (a.k.a. pre-
metal dielectric, or PMD).

App. Br. 6-9 (emphasis added).
Based on the proffered “ordinary and customary meaning” of the term
“contact,” Appellant argues that: (1) the “contact” as is known in the
semiconductor industry cannot be higher than the bottom of the lowest layer
Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

6

of metallic horizontal interconnect wires or the top of the layer of dielectric
(i.e. first dielectric layer, a.k.a. PMD) on which the lowest layer of metallic
horizontal interconnect wires (i.e. first metal layer, a.k.a. Metal1) rests; and
(2) the reflective layer 142 of Lee rests on the dielectric layer 106 and no
part of it is within the dielectric layer 106. App. Br. 11 (citing Lee,
¶[0048]). Consequently, Appellant also argues that Lee’s reflective layer
142 is not a contact, let alone a contact on a dielectric that insulates the
contact from the substrate. App. Br. 12.
However, Appellant’s arguments are misplaced and are inconsistent
with Appellant’s own Specification. At the outset, we note that claim terms
are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Such claim terms are “given their ordinary and customary
meaning” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc). However, it is the use of the words in the context of the
written description and customarily by those skilled in the relevant art that
accurately reflects both the “ordinary” and the “customary” meaning of the
terms in the claims. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls, Div. of Dover
Res., Inc. v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
[The claims] are part of a fully integrated written instrument,
consisting principally of a specification that concludes with the
claims. For that reason, claims must be read in view of the
specification . . . . [T]he specification is always highly relevant
to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it
is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.

Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

7

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
In the instant appeal, Appellant’s Specification is silent regarding the
claim term “contact.” Nevertheless, Appellant has proffered evidence of the
established ordinary and customary meaning of the term “contact” in the
semiconductor industry. App. Br. 6-10. In response, the Examiner has not
addressed Appellant’s proffered “ordinary and customary meaning” of the
term “contact.” Instead, the Examiner responds that: (1) the term “contact”
when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, may simply define
“touching of two objects or surfaces” according to New Riverside
Dictionary, page 303; Ans. 3; (2) Lee discloses that the reflective layer (142)
can be used as an electrical contact because the material used is conductive,
particularly aluminum, copper, or tungsten; Ans. 4 (citing Lee, ¶0039]); and
(3) the use of layer 142 as a contact is consistent with the specification
because the disclosed contact is floating. Ans. 4 (citing Appellant’s Spec., p.
8, l. 7).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s reliance on extrinsic evidence,
i.e., the New Riverside Dictionary in response to Appellant’s proffered
“ordinary and customary meaning” of the term “contact.” Nevertheless, we
find Exhibits #1-#4 support Appellant’s proffered ordinary and customary
meaning of the term “contact” in the semiconductor industry only to the
extent that “a contact [is] embedded in the first level dielectric.” There is no
evidence, particularly from the context of Appellant’s own Specification, to
establish that such a dielectric layer must be arranged above or below any
type of metal interconnects. See Exhibits #1-#4. As such, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “contact” cannot be higher than
Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

8

the bottom of the lowest layer of metallic horizontal interconnect wires or
the top of the layer of dielectric. We therefore decline to read the argued
limitations into Appellant’s claim 1.
We also find the Examiner’s finding regarding Lee is supported by
preponderance of evidence. As shown in FIG. 1 of Lee, as reproduced
below:

FIG. 1 shows Lee’s image sensor
As shown in FIG. 1 of Lee, the image sensor includes a light-
receiving element 102, a transistor 104, a reflective layer 1452, a protective
layer 136, a transparent material layer 146, a material layer 145, and a
dielectric layer 106 and 107. See Lee, ¶[0039]. As described by Lee, both
elements 106 and 107 constitute a dielectric layer.
The reflective element 142, which is identified by the Examiner as
Appellant’s claimed “contact”, is also embedded in the dielectric layer 106
and 107 that insulates such element from the substrate 100 in the manner
that is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term
“contact” in the semiconductor industry, as evidenced in Exhibits #1-#4. As
Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

9

such, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Lee’s reflective
layer 142 is not a contact, let alone a contact on a dielectric that insulates the
contact from the substrate. In particular, we agree with the Examiner that
the use of Lee’s reflective layer 142, particularly in FIGS. 4B-4C and FIG. 5
as Appellant’s claimed “contact” is consistent with Appellant’s own
Specification. Ans. 4.
For the reasons set forth above, we find that Lee discloses “forming a
contact on the dielectric barrier and insulated from the substrate by the
dielectric barrier, the contact having a light-reflective lateral side facing and
bounding the region” as recited in Appellant’s independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Appellant’s
independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lee.
With respect to Appellant’s claim 2, Appellant argues that Lee’s
reflective layer 142 is elongated vertically but not horizontally, that is, in a
direction perpendicular to the substrate, and not parallel to the substrate.
App. Br. 15 (emphasis added).
The Examiner responds that:
“the reflective layer (137) as shown in Figs. 4B-4C, 5 are
formed of conductive rings according to paragraph 0058, lines
19-20, wherein the orientation of the rings may be interpreted
as being elongated along a circular path that is in a plane
parallel to the surface of the substrate, and therefore elongated
in a horizontal direction.”

Ans. 5 (citing Lee, ¶[0058])
We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that the ring-like
structure can be seen as being elongated in a plane parallel to the substrate.
Appeal 2013-007486
Application 13/011,864

10

Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Appellant’s claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Lee.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-2.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

alw