Ex Parte Wicker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2014

11714313 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/714,313 03/06/2007 Guy C. Wicker ITO.0100D1US (P14856D) 4259
21906 7590 04/30/2014
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
LEE, JAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2899
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte GUY C. WICKER
__________

Appeal 2011-009555
Application 11/714,313
Technology Center 2800
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MARK NAGUMO, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal
Applica

A
T
rejectin
view of
W
T
device.
accorda
M
35 and 4
materia
and the

1 US 20
2 US 6,3
3 Claim
rejected
2011 (“
2011-0095
tion 11/71
. STAT
he Appell
g claims 1
Lin.2,3 W
e REVER
he Appell
Appellant
nce with o
A
emory 10
0 formed
l (80) and
insulating

03/018386
16,368 B
s 6 and 8 a
base claim
Ans.”), at
55
4,313
EMENT
ant appeal
-5 and 7 un
e have juri
SE.
ant disclos
’s FIG. 1,
ne embod
ppellant’s
of a mem
0 compris
over insul
a memory
material (

7 A1, pub
1, issued N
re also pen
, and clai
9.
OF THE C
s under 35
der 35 U.
sdiction u
es a metho
reproduce
iment of th
FIG. 1 de
ory eleme
es memory
ating mate
material (
20). Spec
lished Oct
ovember
ding. Cla
m 8 is allo
2
ASE
U.S.C. §
S.C. § 103
nder 35 U.
d of maki
d below, il
e present
picts a top
nt 105 dur
element
rial 20. S
90) are for
. 7, ll. 18-2
ober 2, 20
13, 2001.
im 6 is ob
wed. Exa
134 from a
(a) as unp
S.C. § 6(b
ng a phase
lustrates a
invention.
view of a
ing fabric
105 which
pec. 6, l. 2
med over
0; FIG. 3.
03.
jected to a
miner’s A
n Examin
atentable o
).
change m
memory
Spec. 2, l
portion
ation.
includes t
6-7, l. 2. A
the two co
The App
s being de
nswer date
er’s decisi
ver Fricke
emory
100 in
l. 22-24.

wo contac
n insulati
ntacts (35
ellant
pendent o
d Februar
on
1 in
ts
ng
, 40)
n a
y 3,
Appeal 2011-009555
Application 11/714,313

3

discloses that in one embodiment, the memory material (90) is a non-volatile,
phase change material having electrical properties that may be changed through the
application of energy, such as a voltage potential. Examples of the phase change
material are said to include a chalcogenide material or an ovonic material. Spec. 7,
l. 21-8, l. 3; see also Spec. 8, ll. 4-14 (describing the chalcogenide and ovonic
materials).
The Appellant discloses:
[T]he region of memory material 90 subject to state or phase
transitions in response to applied voltage potentials, is confined to a
portion of memory material 90 adjacent the tips of contacts 35 and 40
[i.e., tips 36 and 41, respectively, in FIG. 1], which is less than the
total volume of memory material 90. Accordingly, a smaller portion
of memory material 90 may be subject to state or phase transitions,
which may decrease the amount of energy (e.g., voltage/current) used
to program memory material 90.
Spec. 12, ll. 11-19.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief dated September 30, 2010 (“App. Br.”). The limitations at issue
are italicized.
1. A method, comprising:
forming a memory material over a substrate;
forming a first wedge-shaped contact adjacent to the memory
material; and
forming a second wedge-shaped contact separated from the first
wedge-shaped contact by a distance of less than 2500 Angstroms and
adjacent to the memory material; and
said first and second wedge-shaped contacts tapering towards
one another.
Appeal
Applica

B
F
below, i
R
method
over a s
adjacen
2011-0095
tion 11/71
. DISC
ricke discl
llustrate o
Fricke
Frick
eferring to
of making
ubstrate, f
t to the me
55
4,313
USSION
oses a mem
ne embodi
FIG. 5 dep
e FIG. 6 d
Fricke FI
a memory
orming a f
mory mate
ory struc
ment of th
icts a sect
epicts a pl
illustrated
GS. 5 and
structure
irst wedge
rial (23),
4
ture. Frick
e memory
ional view
an view of
in Fricke F
6, the Exa
comprisin
-shaped co
and formin
e FIGS. 5
structure.
of a mem
the memo
IG. 5.
miner find
g forming
ntact (i.e.
g a secon
and 6, rep
Fricke, p

ory structu

ry structu
s Fricke d
a memory
, left-side
d wedge-s
roduced
ara. [0006
re.
re
iscloses a
material
contact 13
haped con
].
(23)
9)
tact
Appeal 2011-009555
Application 11/714,313

5

(i.e., left-side contact 133) separated from the first wedge-shaped contact (139) and
adjacent to the same memory material (23). The Examiner finds the first and
second wedge-shaped contacts taper towards each other. Ans. 4.
The Examiner finds Fricke does not teach that the second wedge-shaped
contact (133) is separated from the first wedge-shaped contact (139) “by a distance
of less than 2500 [A]ngstroms” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4. However, the
Examiner finds Lin discloses a semiconductor device having a “[l]inewidth such as
0.2 microns (2000 angstroms)” and concludes that it would have been obvious to
separate the first and second wedge-shaped contacts in Fricke by the same
distance. Ans. 4-5; see also Lin, col. 1, ll. 32-36.
The Appellant argues that first wedge-shaped contact 139 and second
wedge-shaped contact 133 do not extend or taper “towards one another” as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 10. More specifically, the Appellant argues:
Looking at the top view of Figure 6, it could be argued that the bottom
element 139 very loosely tapers towards the upper element 133. But
the claim requires that both contacts taper towards one another. There
is no reasonable way to construe the element 133 as tapering towards
the element 139. Notice that opposed faces of the elements 133 and
139 are parallel. The element 133 is rectangular and does not taper
towards anything and the vertically spaced apart but opposed faces,
are clearly parallel, as shown in Figure 5, and therefore, there is no
way that any faces of the relied upon elements 133 and 139 taper
towards one another.
Reply Br. 2.4 The Appellant’s argument is supported by the record.
The Appellant also argues that the disclosure in Lin of “a linewidth lower
than 0.2 micrometers” (Lin, col. 1, ll. 32-36) refers to the width of a bit line (106,

4 Reply Brief dated March 30, 2011.
Appeal 2011-009555
Application 11/714,313

6

206), not the spacing between bit lines. App. Br. 11. The Appellant argues that
“[t]eaching making lines narrow does not teach a reason to put two contacts that
close to one another.” Reply Br. 2.
This argument is also supported by the record. The Examiner has not
directed us to any evidence establishing that the material of the bit lines (106, 206)
disclosed in Lin is related to the memory material (23) disclosed in Fricke. Thus,
on this record, there would have been no reason to space the second wedge-shaped
contact (133) from the first wedge-shaped contact (139) using the linewidth
disclosed in Lin (i.e., less than 0.2 micrometers (2000 Angstroms)) absent the
Appellant’s disclosure. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A
rejection based on section 103 must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art.”).
In sum, the Appellant has demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1. Claims 2-5 and 7 depend from claim 1. Therefore,
the §103(a) rejection of claims 1-5 and 7 is not sustained.
C. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

kmm