Ex Parte ZHU et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 4, 201613277642 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/277,642 10/20/2011 Ming ZHU 95496 7590 08/08/2016 Hauptman Ham, LLP (TSMC) 2318 Mill Road Suite 1400 Alexandria, VA 22314 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. T5057-Y585 1043 EXAMINER RAMPERSAUD, PRIYA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2891 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/08/2016 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): tsmc@ipfirm.com sramunto@ipfirm.com pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MING ZHU, HUI-WEN LIN, HARRY-RAK-LAY CHUANG, BAO-RU YOUNG, YUAN-SHENG HUANG, RYAN CHIA-JEN CHEN, and CHAO-CHENG CHEN1 Appeal2015-001129 Application 13/277 ,642 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 21-30 in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., HSINCHU CITY, TAIWAN. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2015-001129 Application 13/277,642 BACKGROUND Appellants' invention relates to integrated circuit fabrication. Spec. i-f 2. Independent claim 1 is representative: 1. A complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) semiconductor device comprising: a substrate comprising an isolation region adjacent to and separating a P-active region and an N-active region; a P-metal gate electrode over the P-active region and extending over the isolation region, wherein the P-metal gate electrode comprises a P-work function metal and an oxygen- containing TiN layer between the P-work function metal and substrate; and an N-metal gate electrode over the N-active region and extending over the isolation region, wherein the N-metal gate electrode comprises an N-work function metal and a nitrogen- rich TiN layer between the N-work function metal and substrate, wherein the nitrogen-rich TiN layer connects to the oxygen-containing TiN layer over the isolation region. Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). Independent claims 12, 15, and 19 contain similar limitations. Id. at 25-28. Claims 21 and 29 are also independent, and contain essentially the same limitation emphasized above. See id. at 18- 20. The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection: I. Claims 1, 4---6, 9, 10, 21-23, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2010/0052067 Al [hereinafter Hsu] (published Mar. 4, 2010) and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2010/0327366 Al [hereinafter Manabe] (published Dec. 30, 2010). Final Action 2-9. II. Claims 2, 7, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu and Manabe, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2 Appeal 2015-001129 Application 13/277,642 No. US 2010/0044806 Al [hereinafter Hou] (published Feb. 25, 2010). Final Action 9--11. III. Claims 3, 8, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu and Manabe, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2010/0258881 Al [hereinafter Chudzik] (published Oct. 14, 2010). Final Action 11-16. IV. Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu and Manabe, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. US 2012/0070948 Al [hereinafter Cheng] (published Mar. 22, 2012). Final Action 16-17. DISCUSSION Figure 4G of Hsu is reproduced below: 306 308 331-,,\ ]' ·1 \ /" 332 ~ nM.bS o:;"""' , _,,,_ p.MOS ~ FIG. 4G According to the Examiner, Figure 4G depicts a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) including nitrogen-rich TiN layer 316n which connects to an oxygen-containing TiN layer 316p over an isolation region (illustrated elsewhere). Final Action 3. The Examiner relies upon the 3 Appeal 2015-001129 Application 13/277,642 seeming connection of 316n and 316p in Figure 4G to embody the limitation "wherein the nitrogen-rich TiN layer connects to the oxygen-containing TiN layer over the isolation region" in claim 1, and equivalent limitations in independent claims 21 and 29. See id. at 3, 6, 14; Answer 3. Appellants argue that Figure 4G of Hsu is a comparative illustration showing the layers of the two distinct and separated NMOS and PMOS devices shown in Figures 4A-F, and that Figure 4G is not an a actual structure disclosed in Hsu. See Appeal Br. 8-10. We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Figure 4G contains a dotted midline, with arrows near the top pointing to "nMOS" device 306 on the left, and "pMOS" device 308 on the right. See also Hsu i-f 33 (referring separately to "PMOS device 308" and "NMOS device 306"). Figure 4G also includes labels 331and332 pointing to the nMOS and pMOS sides, respectively. According to Hsu, 331 is the gate structure of the NMOS device 306, and 332 is the gate structure of the PMOS device 308. See id. Gate structures 331and332 are shown in Figure 4A as separate devices. Like Figure 4G, Figure 4A also contains a comparative diagram showing the differences between the stack of layers comprising gates 331 and 332. The Examiner acknowledges that the block of layers above Figure 4A is a layer-by-layer comparison, but notes that unlike Figure 4G, Figure 4A has circles and squiggle lines pointing to the location where the layers are located in the structure. Answer 4--5. During prosecution, the Examiner requested that Appellants submit an affidavit establishing that Figure 4G was also a layer-by-layer comparison, Answer 5, and holds that it is not unreasonable to interpret Figure 4G as a cross-sectional view of an actual structure. Id. at 6. We disagree. On its face, Figure 4G clearly shows a 4 Appeal 2015-001129 Application 13/277,642 layer-by-layer comparison similar to that shown in Figure 4A, and we find nothing in the disclosure of Hsu to indicate otherwise. For the above reasons, we determine that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case that the limitation "wherein the nitrogen-rich TiN layer connects to the oxygen-containing TiN layer over the isolation region" of independent claim 1 (and equivalently in independent claims 21 and 29) was obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The Examiner's other findings and citations to other references do not cure this deficiency. Therefore, we determine that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 1-10 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 21-30 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation