Ex Parte Yamazaki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 12, 201613166073 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/166,073 06/22/2011 31780 7590 08/16/2016 Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P,C, 3975 Fair Ridge Drive Suite 20 North Fairfax, VA 22033 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. 0756-9368 5125 EXAMINER PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2814 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/16/2016 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): ptomail@riplo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI, MASAHIRO TAKAHASHI, TAKUY A HIROHASHI, KA TSU AKI TOCHIBA Y ASHI, Y ASUTAKA NAKAZA WA, and MASATOSHI YOKOYAMA Appeal2014-009520 1 Application 13/166,073 Technology Center 2800 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3. An oral hearing was held in this Appeal on August 4, 2016. Appeal2014-009520 Application 13/166,073 Appellants ; Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for manufacturing a semiconductor device having an oxide semiconductor layer within which nitrogen concentration is limited to 2 x 1019 atoms/cm3 or less to thereby inhibit bonding of oxygen and a metal included in the layer. Spec. iii! 7-9. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A semiconductor device comprising: a gate insulating layer; a first gate electrode in contact with one surface of the gate insulating layer; an oxide semiconductor layer in contact with the other surface of the gate insulating layer and overlapping with the first gate electrode; and a source electrode, a drain electrode, and an oxide insulating layer which are in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer, wherein a nitrogen concentration of the oxide semiconductor layer is 2 x 1019 atoms/cm 3 or lower, and wherein the source electrode and the drain electrode include at least one of tungsten, platinum, and molybdenum. Yamanaka Shih Sakata Yano Prior Art Relied Upon US 2007 /0087492 Al US 7,211,825 B2 US 2010/0207117 Al US 2010/0295042 Al Rejections on Appeal 2 Apr. 19, 2007 May 1, 2007 Aug. 19, 2010 Nov. 25, 2010 Appeal2014-009520 Application 13/166,073 Claims 1---6, 9-16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Shih, Sakata, and Yamanaka. Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Shih, Sakata, Yamanaka, and Yano. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Yamanaka's disclosure of limiting the nitrogen concentration in a thin film (silicon) semiconductor layer would not have led the ordinarily skilled artisan to do the same in Shih's oxide semiconductor layer because the two semiconductors devices function in different ways, and have different properties. App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 4---6. According to Appellants, because Yamanaka's silicon semiconductor layer does not include a metal to which oxygen can be bonded, the effect of nitrogen in the Silicon layer would be different in Shih's oxide semiconductor layer, which includes a metal to which oxygen can be bonded. Id. This argument is persuasive. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding Yamanaka's silicon semiconductor is a suitable substitute for Shih's oxide semiconductor despite the obvious differing properties between the two semiconductor devices. Reply Br. 4, Ans. 3--4 (citing Yamanaka i-fi-186, 89, 93). Although Yamanaka's disclosure of limiting the nitrogen concentration in the silicon semiconductor layer at 1 x 2019 atoms/cm2 or less may arguably fall within the range required by the claim (we note that Yamanaka measurement is in atoms/cm2 as opposed to the claimed atoms/cm3), the Examiner has not presented any evidence on this record to support that such restriction of nitrogen concentration in the oxide semiconductor layer of 3 Appeal2014-009520 Application 13/166,073 Shih would inure to the benefit of the latter semiconductor layer. Albeit paragraph 93 of Yamanaka discusses numerous benefits including avoiding low oxidization, and adhesion of contaminants in the silicon semiconductor layer to enhance the productivity thereof, we find no evidence that such benefits are derived from the restriction of the nitrogen concentration in the cited layer, let alone benefiting the oxide semiconductor layer. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments. We, therefore, agree with Appellants that the proposed combination of references does not teach a semiconductor device having an oxide semiconductor layer within which nitrogen concentration is limited to 2 xx 1019atoms/cm3 or less. Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, or the rejections of claims 2-20, which recite commensurate limitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation