Ex Parte Yukawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

11826227 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
11/826,227 07/13/2007 Mikio Yukawa 0756-8075 1866
31780 7590 09/27/2013
Robinson Intellectual Property Law Office, P.C.
3975 Fair Ridge Drive
Suite 20 North
Fairfax, VA 22033
EXAMINER
REAMES, MATTHEW L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2893
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2013 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 MIKIO YUKAWA and NOZOMU SUGISAWA
____________________

Appeal 2011-006240
Application 11/826,227
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006240
Application 11/826,227

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 23-34 and 37-50. An oral hearing was conducted on this appeal on
September 5, 2013. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a memory element
and semiconductor device designed to reduce variations in programming
behavior and methods for manufacturing the same. Abstract.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 23, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
23. A manufacturing method for a memory device
comprising:
forming a first conductive layer over a substrate;
forming a metal oxide layer by oxidizing a surface of the
first conductive layer;
forming a semiconductor layer over the metal oxide
layer;
forming an organic compound layer over the
semiconductor layer; and
forming a second conductive layer over the organic
compound layer, wherein the organic compound layer is
capable of changing a shape thereof by applying a voltage
between the first conductive layer and the second conductive
layer.

Appeal 2011-006240
Application 11/826,227

3
References
Scalora
Cordaro
Yamaguchi
Oya
Anma
Tanabe
Nomura
Yamazaki
Yeh
Nishiyama
U.S. 2002/0021479 A1
U.S. 2002/0157702 A1
U.S. 2003/0010376 A1
U.S. 2003/0186040 A1
U.S. 2004/0089891 A1
U.S. 2004/0239597 A1
U.S. 2005/0008052 A1
U.S. 2005/0130389 A1
U.S. 2006/0082289 A1
JP 63-266063
Feb. 21, 2002
Oct. 31, 2002
Jan. 16, 2003
Oct. 2, 2003
May 13, 2004
Dec. 2, 2004
Jan. 13, 2005
Jun. 16, 2005
Apr. 20, 2006
Feb. 11, 1988
Youichi Okabayashi, Negative Giant Surface Potential of Peeled Alq3 Thin
Film, Thin Solid Films 518, 839-841(2009).

Rejections
Claims 23-26 and 39-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tanabe, Nishiyama, and Okabayashi. Ans. 4-6.
Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanabe, Nishiyama, and Yamazaki. Ans. 6-7.
Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanabe, Nishiyama, and Nomura. Ans. 7.
Claims 29-32 and 46-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tanabe, Nishiyama, Yeh, and Okabayashi. Ans. 8-
10.
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanabe, Yeh, Yamazaki, and Nishiyama. Ans. 10-11.
Claims 44 and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tanabe, Yeh, Nomura, and Nishiyama. Ans. 11-12.

Appeal 2011-006240
Application 11/826,227

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Tanabe, Nishiyama and
Okabayashi does not teach “forming a metal oxide layer . . . [and] forming a
semiconductor layer over the metal oxide layer,” as recited in independent
claim 23 and similarly recited in independent claim 29. App. Br. 5-11.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the ITO anode of Tanabe (Tanabe Fig. 2,
item 12) cannot be both the semiconductor layer and a metal oxide layer.
App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue that the ITO anode is a single layer and
does not meet the recited “forming a metal oxide layer” and “forming a
semiconductor layer over [directly or indirectly] a metal oxide layer.” App.
Br. 8-9. Appellants assert Tanabe does not teach or suggest that the ITO
anode layer consists of discrete portions such that one portion may be a
semiconductor layer while another portion may be a metal oxide layer.
Reply 3. Appellants also argue neither Nishiyama nor Okabayashi cure the
deficiencies of Tanabe. App. Br. 8-9.
The Examiner finds “Appellant teaches the metal oxide paragraph 23
page 10 that the metal oxide is ITO and that the semiconductor is Tin Oxide
which reads on Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) [and thus] reads on and ITO metal
oxide and a ITO semiconductor layer.” Ans. 13.
We agree with Appellants that claims 23 and 29 both recite two
distinct layers formed by two separate method steps. Accordingly, we do not
find that Tanabe, alone or in combination with Nishiyama and/or
Okabayashi, teaches forming a metal oxide layer and subsequently forming a
semiconductor layer over (directly or indirectly) the metal oxide layer. We
do not agree with the Examiner that Tanabe’s single ITO anode layer
teaches “forming a metal oxide layer . . . [and] forming a semiconductor
Appeal 2011-006240
Application 11/826,227

5
layer over the metal oxide layer,” as recited in independent claim 23 and
similarly recited in independent claim 29. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 23 and 29. Dependent claims 24-28, 30-34
and 37-50 ultimately depend from one of independent claims 23 and 29 and
thus include the same limitation through their dependency. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 24-28, 30-34 and 37-50.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23-34 and
37-50 is reversed.

REVERSED
ke