Ex Parte VORA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2001

08654760 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2001)

1An amendment, together with a declaration, were filed after the final
rejection, see papers 10 and 8 respectively, however, the examiner did not
approve the entry of the amendment but did approve the entry of the
declaration. See paper no. 13.
1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte MADHUKAR B. VORA
_____________
Appeal No. 1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before LALL, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection1 of claims 1 to 5, which constitute
all of the claims in this application.
The invention is directed to a vertically-integrated EEPROM
cell which has two features which distinguish over the prior
art. The first principal structural difference is the use of a
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
2
self aligned vertical floating gate. The second principal
difference is that the bit line is formed on top of the substrate
and not in the substrate and makes contact with the drain of
every cell at the location of the cell. A further understanding
of the invention can be achieved by the following claim:
1. A nonvolatile memory cell array comprised of a
plurality of EEPROM memory cells, each cell comprising:
a semiconductor substrate;
a vertical MOS transistor formed by alternating N-
type and P-type doped layers in said substrate and
wherein a well is etched into said substrate through
said alternating N-type and P-type layers such that
said alternating layer surround said well, said well
having a floating gate of conductive material formed
therein which is self aligned to not extend laterally
beyond edges of said well and insulated from and
overlying said alternating N-type and P-type layers by
a layer of gate insulating material;
a word line contact comprising a layer of
conductive material formed on said substrate so as to
extend down into said well and overlie said floating
gate but insulated therefrom by an insulation layer;
and
a bit line contact comprising a layer of
conductive material formed on said substrate so as to
be in electrical contact with the drain region of said
vertical MOS transistor formed in said substrate.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Mori 5,071,782 Dec. 10, 1991
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
2 In the statement of the rejection in the examiner’s answer at page 7,
the examiner rejects claims 1 and 2, however in the body of the rejection, the
examiner discusses claim 3 rather than claim 1. Appellant responds as if the
rejection were of claims 2 and 3. Accordingly we have considered clailms 2
and 3. They should, therefore, also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
3 A reply brief was filed as paper no. 16 and the examiner noted its
entry without further comment, see paper no. 17.
3
Claims 2 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Mori. Claims 1 and 3 to 4 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 as being unpatentable over Mori.
Claims 3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mori.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs3 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs.
We affirm-in-part.
We will discuss each ground of rejection separately.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 2 and 3 under this
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
4
rejection at page 7 of the examiner’s answer. Appellant argues,
at pages 10 and 11 of the brief, against the second paragraph
rejection, however, the main argument seems to be that the
examiner should have entered the amendment after final rejection
which would have eliminated the rejections which the examiner has
maintained. We are constrained to consider the claims as they
appear in the record. The entry of the amendment after the final
rejection is strictly a petitionable matter and is not the before
us. Rather than affirming the examiner pro forma on this
rejection, we nevertheless, consider the merits of the rejection.
We agree with the examiner that indeed, claims 2 and 3 are
indefinite for the reasons set forth by the examiner at page 7 of
the answer. However, as to claim 2, line 34, we do not agree
with the examiner’s position that it is unclear what the word
line is being insulated from. Our reading of claim 2, lines 34
to 38 convinces us that the bit line is being insulated from the
word line by insulating layer 29 as shown in figure 5 of the
specification. As to the other specific points raised by the
examiner at page 7 of the answer, we are in agreement with the
examiner. For example, the word “coincident” (claim 2, line 4),
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
5
requires additional material to convey a definite meaning
to the claimed limitation; “surface” (claim 2, line 4 and claim
3, line 5) should be a part of a solid material which forms the
claimed drain; and the “word line contact” and the “bit-line
contact” are undefined because the two lines make contact with
many surfaces and it is unclear which contacts are being recited.
Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 2
to 5 under this ground of rejection.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or §§ 102/103 or § 103.
We noted above that claims 2 to 5 are indefinite, however,
with the help of the figures and the text in the specification,
we have an understanding of the meanings of the various terms in
the claims. Therefore, we shall consider the merits of the
claims. All of the rejections on the merits are based on a
single reference, namely Mori.
On pages 3 to 5 of the examiner’s answer, the examiner
asserts that claim 2 is anticipated by Mori. The examiner
rejects claims 1 and 3 to 4 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 over Mori
at pages 5 and 6 of the examiner’s answer. Further, the examiner
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
6
rejects claims 3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mori at page 6
of the answer.
We agree with appellant (reply brief at page 1) that the
whole appeal depends on one simple issue. That issue is the
interpretation given to the phrase “self-aligned”. We agree with
the examiner that the process limitations cannot be read into
apparatus claims (answer at pages 10 and 11), however, the claims
are not to be interpreted in a vacuum. We are persuaded by
appellant that the structure resulting from the process described
in the specification (see figures 1, 2 and 20, and table at pages
13 to 15 of the specification), leads one to conclude that
appellant is correct in his interpretation of the claims (reply
brief at page 6), when appellant states “[t]he correct interpre-
tation is that it will not have any horizontal component on the
surface of the substrate or on the bottom of the well and
therefore will not extend beyond the perimeter of the trench.”
With this interpretation of the claims and observing figures 1b
and 4b of Mori, we are not convinced that Mori anticipated the
claimed limitations of claim 1. Moreover, we are of the view
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
4 We note that in claim 2, line 16, the phrase “first layer of
insulating material” lacks proper antecedent basis because line 14 of claim 2
eliminates the definition of a first layer. In any future prosecution of this
application, we recommend that the examiner and the appellant to assure that
proper antecedence is provided for the recited “first layer”.
7
that the examiner is indulging in speculation when she makes the
statement (answer at page 4), that: “[f]loating gate FG is ‘self
aligned . . . so as to not extend beyond the edges of said well,’
because FG does not extend beyond the edges of the well.” The
examiner has not pointed to any specific recitation in the text
of Mori to buttress this position. Therefore, we do not sustain
the anticipation rejection of claim 24 by Mori.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, and 3 and 4 under
§§ 102/103, we note that this rejection suffers from the same
deficiency as noted above, that is, the configuration resulting
from the process of achieving a “self aligned” structure which
has no horizontal components to the floating gate is not shown by
Mori and the examiner has not provided any evidence to support
the contention that it would have been obvious to supply Mori
with a floating gate having the recited structure. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejections of claims 1, and 3 to 4 over Mori.
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
8
With respect to claims 3 and 5, the obviousness rejection
over Mori explained at page 6 of the examiner’s answer is also
not sustainable because of the same deficiency. Claim 3 has
already been discussed. In addition, we point out that claim 3
also recites a spacer layer (lines 22 to 23) and the examiner has
not provided a reason why it would have been obvious to provide
the spacer layer other than the bare statement that “otherwise
the bitlines and wordlines would be shorted out”(answer at
page 6). Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 3 and 5 over Mori.
In conclusion, we have sustained the rejection of claims 2
to 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but have not
sustained the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claim 2, the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 of claims 1 and 3 to 4, or
the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 3 and 5.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1
to 5 is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
vsh
Appeal No.1999-1940
Application No. 08/654,760
10
RONALD CRAIG FISH
FALK, VESTAL & FISH
16590 OAK VIEW CIRCLE
MORGAN HILL, CA 95037