13153919 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

Ex Parte Yamazaki

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 6, 2016

13153919 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/153,919 06/06/2011 26171 7590 09/08/2016 FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (DC) P.O. BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Shunpei Yamazaki 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12732-0874001 9992 EXAMINER BOOKER, VICKI B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2813 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2016 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI Appeal2015-001981 Application 13/153,919 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETERF. KRATZ, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a semiconductor device. Claim 15 is illustrative: 15. A semiconductor device comprising: a gate electrode; a first insulating film including gallium and oxygen over the gate electrode; Appeal2015-001981 Application 13/153,919 an oxide semiconductor film over the first insulating film; and a second insulating film including gallium and oxygen over the oxide semiconductor film, wherein the first insulating film is in contact with a first face of the oxide semiconductor film, and wherein the second insulating film is in contact with a second face of the oxide semiconductor film. Yamazaki Ha ta The References US 2010/0051940 Al Mar. 4, 2010 US 2011/0180903 Al July 28, 2011 (Â§ 371 (c)(l), (2), (4) date Mar. 31, 2011) The Rejection Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Yamazaki in view ofHata. OPINION We reverse the rejection. We need address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 8, and 15. Those claims require a semiconductor device comprising a second insulating film including gallium and oxygen. Yamazaki discloses a semiconductor device comprising a gate electrode (101 ), a first insulating film (gate insulating layer 102) over the gate electrode, an oxide semiconductor film (103) over the first insulating film, and a second insulating film (107a) over the oxide semiconductor film (i-fi-f 123, 137, 164; Fig. 4A). The second insulating film (107a) is a protective film "provided to prevent entry of a contaminant impurity such as an organic substance, a metal substance, or moisture floating in the air and is preferably a dense film" (i-f 185). The exemplified protective film is "a 2 Appeal2015-001981 Application 13/153,919 stacked layer of an oxide film (a silicon oxide film, a silicon oxynitride film, an aluminum oxide film, or an aluminum oxynitride film) and a nitride film (a silicon nitride film, a silicon nitride oxide film, an aluminum nitride film, or an aluminum nitride oxide film)" (id.). Hata discloses a semiconductor device comprising a gate insulator ( 114) which insulates a gate electrode ( 116) from a semiconductor crystal (112) (i-f 219; Fig. 14). The exemplified gate insulators are AlGaAs, AlinGaP, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, gallium oxide, gadolinium oxide, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, lanthanum oxide, and a mixture thereof (id.). The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Hatta' s gallium oxide as Yamazaki' s second insulating film ( 107 a) because gallium oxide was known in the art to be a suitable insulating film material (Final Act. 5-7, 9; Ans. 2). The Examiner does not establish that either gallium oxide or oxides in general were known in the art to provide the protective properties required ofYamazaki's protective insulating film (107a) (i-f 185). Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellant's claimed invention. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 over Yamazaki in view ofHata is reversed. 3 Appeal2015-001981 Application 13/153,919 It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 4