Ex Parte Wong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2002

08903549 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2002)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte TING-WAH WONG

Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549

ON BRIEF

Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-27, 29 and 30, all of the pending claims.
The invention is directed to a high performance integrated
circuit device. More particularly, an integrated circuit device
is formed on a semiconductor die adapted to operate with positive
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-2–
and negative supply voltages. The device includes a first group
of integrated MOS transistors formed on the die. The first group
of transistors has gate oxides. A second group of integrated MOS
transistors is formed on the die and the second group also has
gate oxides. The gate oxides of the second group of transistors
are thicker than the gate oxides of the first group of
transistors. A path is provided to communicate boosted positive
and negative supply voltages, greater than the positive and
negative supply voltages, to at least some of the second group of
transistors.
Representative independent claim 11 is reproduced as
follows:
11. An integrated circuit device comprising:
a first transistor having a gate electrode and a gate oxide;
and
a second transistor having gate electrode and a gate oxide,
said gate oxide of said second transistor being thicker than said
gate oxide of said first transistor, said second transistor gate
electrode adapted to be selectively connected to a positive or a
negative bias voltage.

The examiner relies on the following references:
Crouse 4,628,307 Dec. 9, 1986
Yoh 4,954,730 Sep. 4, 1990
Yee 5,818,087 Oct. 6, 1998
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-3–
(filed Nov. 13, 1996)
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as
anticipated by Yee.
Claims 27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by either one of Yoh or Crouse.
Claims 1-10 and 12-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Yee.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable
over either one of Yoh or Crouse.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective
positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning, first to the rejection of claim 11, the examiner
points to the abstract of Yee and contends that the claimed
subject matter is met by Yee because transistors which are formed
inside of Yee’s 350 micron radius have thicker gate oxides than
the transistors formed outside of this radius. The examiner
interprets the last two lines of the claim as requiring only the
“ability” to be connected to a bias voltage and, contending that
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-4–
the claim language offers an alternative expression, “a positive
or a negative bias voltage” and Yee offers at least one bias
voltage, concludes that Yee meets the instant claim language.
Yee discloses a power supply voltage Vcc and a ground
voltage Vss. Appellant contends that Yee has absolutely no
teaching of selectively applying a positive or a negative bias
voltage because nowhere does Yee suggest the use of a negative
supply voltage of any type or for any purpose.
We agree with appellant that the instant claim language
requires more than a mere disclosure of one of alternative
voltages. The claim does not call for either a positive or a
negative voltage, in which case a disclosure of either voltage by
Yee would meet the instant claim limitations. Rather, the claim
specifically requires the second transistor gate electrode
“adapted to be selectively connected to a positive or a negative
bias voltage.” Thus, Yee must have the ability to select between
a positive or a negative voltage and not merely disclose only one
of these voltages. Accordingly, we do not agree with the
examiner’s logic that only one or the other of the bias voltages
need be disclosed. If Yee did not have the ability to
selectively connect between either one of a positive or negative
bias voltage, then Yee would not meet the instant claim language.
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-5–
Having said that, we do find that Yee meets the instant
claim language because the second group of transistors is
connected to a supply voltage Vcc and appellant does not dispute
this. Yee does not specify Vcc to be a positive voltage and so
Vcc may be either a positive or a negative bias voltage,
depending on the choice of the artisan building the circuit.
Since Vcc may be positive or negative, Yee clearly does permit
the second transistor gate electrode to be “adapted to be
selectively connected to a positive or a negative bias voltage,”
as claimed.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
102(e) over Yee.
Next, we treat the rejection of claims 27 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b) over either one of Yoh or Crouse.
With regard to these claims, the examiner contends that the
zero threshold transistor reads on an n-channel depletion FET
formed in parallel with a PMOSFET, as disclosed in column 1, last
three lines of Yoh and in column 4, lines 25-30 of Crouse.
For his part, appellant argues only that the examiner has
not given due credence to the claim language “adapted to,” that
this language must be read as related to corresponding structure
and that there is “absolutely no structure disclosed in any of
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-6–
these references for making a connection to a boosted power
supply” [brief-page 7]. Appellant’s argument, in a nutshell, is
that “[w]hile the Examiner repeatedly insists that the language
covers the “ability to” be so connected, the Federal Circuit has
made it absolutely clear that the “adapted to” language covers
the structure that enables this arrangement to be achieved”
[brief-page 7]. Appellant cites Pac-Tec Inc. v. Amerace Corp.,
903 F.2d 796, 801, 14 USPQ2d 1871, 1876 (Fed. Cir. 1990) as
support for this proposition.
We agree with the examiner that the language, “adapted
to...” only requires that the device be capable of doing what the
claim language recites, in this case, the gate electrode being
selectively connected to a negative potential and the transfer
gate being selectively connected to a positive voltage boosted
above the supply voltage. Appellant’s reading of Pac-Tec is
misplaced in that there is no requirement that specific structure
be read into the claim from the specification; only that meaning
be given to the term, “adapted to” so that the prior art being
applied against the claim is capable of the claimed function.
That is, structure recited in the claim must be capable of
performing the claimed function following the “adapted to”
language.
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-7–
However, in the instant case, the examiner has made no
showing that the cited references disclose a transfer gate, as
claimed, wherein a gate electrode may be “adapted to be
selectively connected to a negative potential” and wherein a
transfer gate may be “adapted to be selectively connected to a
positive voltage boosted above said supply voltage,” as claimed.
The portions of Yoh and Crouse cited by the examiner provide no
indication of these claimed capabilities and the examiner has not
explained how these portions may be interpreted as disclosing the
claimed limitations. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).
With regard to the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-26 under
35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner states, with regard to independent
claim 1, that Yee discloses all of the claimed subject matter but
for a path system for communicating the recited boosted voltages
to the second transistors but contends that this would have been
obvious “since it is old and well-known in the art that when gate
oxide layers are made thicker, a higher bias voltage applied to
the gate of the transistor will be needed due to the higher Vt of
the transistor caused by the thicker gate oxide layer, of which
fact official notice is taken” [answer-page 5].
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-8–
With regard to independent claim 21, the examiner states
that “it is well-known in the art to use a FET as a transfer gate
for transmitting signals between a pair of logic gates (as is the
use of a PMOS transistor in parallel with an NMOS transistor), of
which fact official notice is taken” [answer-page 8].
Not only does independent claim 21 contain the “selectively
connected to...” language of claims 11 and 27 and not only does
independent claim 1 contain the “boosted” supply voltages of
claim 27, but the examiner has failed to provide evidence of the
things alleged to be “well-known” even though official notice
taken by the examiner of these things has been challenged by
appellant.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-10 and 12-26 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yoh or
Crouse is also not sustained because claim 29 depends from claim
27, the rejection of which under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over these same
references was not sustained and the examiner’s rationale under
35 U.S.C. 103 adds nothing that would supply the deficiencies
noted supra with regard to the 102 rejection.
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-9–
Thus, since we have not sustained the rejections of claims
27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and we have not sustained the
rejections of claims 1-10, 12-26 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103, but
we have sustained the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
102(e), the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
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
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Appeal No. 2000-0751
Application No. 08/903,549
-10–
EK/RWK
TIMOTHY N. TROP
TROP, PRUNER, HU & MILES, P.C.
8554 KATY FREEWAY, SUITE 100
HOUSTON, TX 77024