Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 21, 2021

2021002432 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2021)

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. 16/685,074 11/15/2019 Yujia ZHAI 025658US02DIV 4860 44257 7590 12/21/2021 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS 24 GREENWAY PLAZA SUITE 1600 HOUSTON, TX 77046 EXAMINER GREEN, TELLY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2822 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2021 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): Applied_Materials.Pair@anaqua.com Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YUJIA ZHAI, XIANGXIN RUI, LAI ZHAO, DONG-KIL YIM, and SOO YOUNG CHOI Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 Technology Center 2800 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 12–21, all of the pending claims.2 Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” herein to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claim 11 is canceled. See Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure pertains to “a layer stack including a dielectric layer having a high dielectric constant (high K) value for display devices.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Claims 1, 10, and 16, reproduced below, are illustrative: 1. A layer stack, comprising: a channel layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer and disposed on a substrate; and a gate insulating layer disposed on the channel layer, wherein the gate insulating layer comprises: a silicon dioxide layer disposed on the channel layer; a zirconium dioxide layer disposed on the silicon dioxide layer; and an interface layer disposed on the zirconium dioxide layer and comprising titanium oxide or aluminum oxide, wherein the zirconium dioxide layer is disposed between the silicon dioxide layer and the interface layer and has a thickness of about 250 Å or greater, wherein the gate insulating layer has a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50, and wherein the silicon dioxide layer is disposed between the channel layer and the zirconium dioxide layer. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 3 10. A layer stack, comprising: a substrate; a channel layer disposed on the substrate; and a gate insulating layer disposed on the channel layer, wherein the gate insulating layer comprises: a first interface layer comprising silicon dioxide; a second interface layer comprising titanium dioxide; and a high k dielectric layer between the first interface layer and the second interface layer, wherein the gate insulating layer has a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50. Id. at 33. 16. A layer stack, comprising: a substrate; a channel layer disposed on the substrate; and a gate insulating layer disposed on the channel layer, wherein the gate insulating layer comprises: an interface layer disposed on the channel layer; and a high k dielectric layer disposed on the interface layer, wherein the gate insulating layer has a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50. Id. at 34. Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 4 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references: Name3 Reference Date Roeder US 5,719,417 Feb. 17, 1998 Perng US 6,969,688 B2 Nov. 29, 2005 Kanegae US 2005/0051855 A1 Mar. 10, 2005 Kim US 2011/0315980 A1 Dec. 29, 2011 Yang US 2012/0276702 A1 Nov. 1, 2012 Nam4 US 2017/0179433 A1 (now US 10,026,928 B2) June 22, 2017 (July 17, 2018) Kinoshita US 2019/0140091 A1 May 9, 2019 REJECTIONS Claims 1–9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nam, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae. Final Act. 4–10. Claims 16, 17, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nam and Perng. Final Act. 11–13. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nam, Perng, and Roeder. Final Act. 14–15. Claims 1–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim and Perng. Final Act. 15–19. Claims 1–8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, Roeder, and Kinoshita. Final Act. 19– 24. 3 Each reference is identified by the first-named inventor. 4 In the Final Action, the Examiner cites to paragraphs of the published application of Nam, instead of to corresponding portions of the issued patent. E.g., Final Act. 5. We, similarly, cite those paragraphs herein. Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 5 Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae. Final Act. 24–25. Claims 10, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim and Perng. Final Act. 26– 29. Claims 13 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, and Roeder. Final Act. 29–30. Claims 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yang and Perng. Final Act. 30–33. Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yang, Perng, and Roeder. Final Act. 33–35. OPINION A. Claims 1–9 The Examiner rejects claims 1–9 over different combinations of references, including different primary references, namely, Nam, Kim, and Yang. We address the Examiner’s findings, and Appellant’s arguments, as to the several combinations below. 1. Claims 1–9: Nam, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae5 The Examiner relies on Nam as teaching or suggesting a layer stack with a channel layer comprising amorphous silicon and disposed on a 5 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–9 collectively on this ground. Appeal Br. 7–11. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2–9. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 1–9 on this ground based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 6 substrate, and a gate insulating layer disposed on the channel layer. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Nam, Fig. 7). The Examiner additionally finds Nam discloses that the gate insulation layer (item 113 in Figure 7) “can be a single layer or multilayer film including silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide or other materials.” Id. at 5 (citing Nam ¶ 84). The Examiner additionally relies on Kinoshita as teaching or suggesting “an interface layer disposed on the zirconium dioxide layer and comprising titanium oxide or aluminum oxide,” and further notes “Kinoshita discloses that the gate insulation layer can be a combination of two or more films.” Id. at 7 (citing Kinoshita ¶ 38, Fig. 1). The Examiner relies on Perng as teaching or suggesting a gate insulating layer as comprising a silicon dioxide layer disposed on the channel layer and a zirconium dioxide layer disposed on the silicon dioxide layer, “wherein the gate insulating layer has a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50.” Id. at 5 (citing Perng 4:65–5:5, 1:52–67, 2:1–2, Figs. 2A, 2B). The Examiner relies on Roeder in combination with Nam and Perng as teaching or suggesting the thickness of the zirconium dioxide layer of 250 Å or greater, and finding Roeder teaches or suggests a thickness of the zirconium dioxide layer ranging from about 250 Å to about 900 Å. Id. at 6 (citing Roeder 4:35–45, Fig. 1). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–9 on this ground because (1) Nam is “completely silent” as to the particular layer stack; (2) “the Examiner has not provided the required evidence to suggest why one skilled in the art would be motivated to place a silicon dioxide layer on an amorphous silicon layer (channel layer) and place a zirconium dioxide Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 7 layer on the silicon dioxide layer”; (3) Nam “remains completely silent as to the K value of the disclosed gate insulating layer”; and (4) Nam remains completely silent as to thicknesses of the zirconium dioxide layer or the silicon dioxide layer. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant acknowledges the Examiner’s additional reliance on Perng, but argues the Examiner errs in combining the teachings of Perng with the teachings of Nam because “Perng teaches the use of high-k dielectrics to replace silicon oxide in order to overcome the severe limitation in using silicon oxide in gate dielectrics. Thus, Perng teaches against the modification of Nam for making a multi-layer film containing silicon oxide and a high-k dielectric, such as zirconium oxide.” Id. at 9. Appellant additionally contends Perng does not teach or suggest “a thick gate insulating layer as recited in the claimed subject matter.” Id. Appellant further contends that the Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae references also cited by the Examiner do not “remedy the deficiencies” of Nam and Perng. Id. at 10. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited teachings of the references, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. With regard to the recited composition of the layer stack, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Nam teaches or suggests a multilayer film, including silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide; Perng teaches or suggests a silicon dioxide layer disposed on the channel layer and a zirconium dioxide layer disposed on the silicon dioxide layer; and Kinoshita discloses “an interface layer disposed on the zirconium dioxide layer and comprising titanium oxide or aluminum Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 8 oxide,” and that “the gate insulation layer can be a combination of two or more films.” Final Act. 4–7; see also Ans. 6–9. Appellant’s arguments fail to address all of the Examiner’s findings about the teachings of the applied references regarding the composition of the layer stack, including the teachings of Perng and Kinoshita. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention must be expressly taught or suggested in any one or in each of the references. “Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, where, as here, the rejections are based upon the teachings of a combination of references, “[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually.” In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 425). In addition, a reference “must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.” Id. We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Nam and Perng, either individually or collectively, fail to teach or suggest the required thicknesses of certain layers. See Appeal Br. 9–10. Again, Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of the applied references, including Roeder, which the Examiner finds teaches or suggests a zirconium dioxide layer with a thickness greater than 250 Å. See Final Act. 6 (citing Roeder 4:35–45). Similarly, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Perng’s teachings, combined with those of Nam, fail to teach or suggest the recited K value of the dielectric layer. See Appeal Br. 9–10. In particular, Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 9 Appellant acknowledges that Perng teaches or suggests a dielectric layer with a high-K value, but asserts that one goal of Perng is to “overcome the severe limitation in using silicon [di]oxide in gate dielectrics,” and, thus, “Perng teaches against the modification of Nam for making a multi-layer film containing silicon [di]oxide and a high-k dielectric, such as zirconium [di]oxide.” Id. at 9. We disagree with Appellant. Despite statements in the background of Perng regarding efforts to replace SiO2 as a gate dielectric, Perng specifically describes the invention as “preferably including at least one of hafnium dioxide (HfO2) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) about 30 Angstroms to about 60 Angstroms in thickness, overlying an optionally formed silicon dioxide (SiO2) layer (not shown) about 5 Angstroms to about 15 Angstroms in thickness.” Perng 4:65–5:4 (emphasis added). Thus, Perng does not teach against use of a SiO2 layer, but expressly describes such a layer in combination with a ZrO2 layer, as recited in Appellant’s claims. We also are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s conclusory statements regarding the Examiner’s alleged lack of reasoning supporting a motivation to combine the teachings of the cited references. See Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 2. We recognize the Examiner must articulate “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, the Examiner’s reasoning need not appear in, or be suggested by, one or more of the references on which the Examiner relies. Instead, a reason to combine teachings “may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved.” WMS Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 10 Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Under the correct [obviousness] analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). In the instant appeal, the Examiner provides rationales supporting motivations for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have achieved the claimed subject matter. Final Act. 5–10. Specifically, the Examiner finds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of NAM with the teachings of Perng for the purpose of having a thicker dieletric layer, reducing tunneling current and gate leaking current, high capacitance and a high-k dielectric of 20 or more. Id. at 6 (citing Perng 1:58–67). The Examiner also finds, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nam with the teachings of Roeder for the purpose [of] adhesion.” Id. (citing Roeder 4:35–48). The Examiner additionally finds, “it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gate insulation layer of Nam as modified by Perng and Roeder with the teachings of Kinoshita for the purpose of gate insulation.” Id. at 7. Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or a line of reasoning explaining why such rationales are erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusions reached by the Examiner. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 11 capable of combining the prior art references.”). At most, Appellant presents arguments that, as discussed above, are premised on an overly narrow and, thus, factually incorrect reading of certain references and/or that ignore the Examiner’s findings regarding other references. Consequently, we are not persuaded that the Examiner fails to articulate a sufficient rationale for combining the teachings of the applied references. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in the obviousness rejection of claims 1–9 on this basis, and we, therefore, sustain this rejection. 2. Claims 1–8: Kim and Perng6 The Examiner additionally rejects claims 1–8 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim and Perng. Final Act. 15–19. The Examiner relies on Kim in a manner similar to the Examiner’s reliance on Nam, discussed above. See id. at 15 (finding Kim “discloses a channel layer (item 130) comprising an amorphous silicon layer (item 130 paragraph 4) disposed on a substrate (item 100); [and] a gate insulating layer (item 120) disposed on the channel layer (item 130)”) (citing Kim Figs. 2, 4, 6, and associated text) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner also finds Kim teaches or suggests, the gate insulation layer (item 120) can include at least one insulation layer of silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide or other materials. This implies one or more layers. Therefore, with this teaching of Kim, the gate insulating layer can in fact 6 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–8 collectively on this ground. Appeal Br. 14–16. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2–8. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 1–8 on this ground based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 12 comprise[]: a silicon dioxide layer disposed on the amorphous silicon layer; and a zirconium dioxide layer disposed on the silicon dioxide layer and an interface layer disposed on the zirconium dioxide layer, wherein the gate insulating layer has a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50. Examiner notes that Kim discloses the same materials as claim [1] and would intrinsically have the same characteristics. Id. at 15–16 (emphasis added, bolding omitted) (citing Kim ¶ 33). The Examiner relies on Perng in the same manner as in connection with Nam, as discussed above. See id. at 16–17. Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because, inter alia, neither Kim nor Perng teaches or suggests at least the required thickness of the zirconium dioxide layer. See Appeal Br. 16. We are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection on this ground. The Examiner makes no findings that Kim, alone or combined with Perng, discloses the required thickness of the zirconium dioxide layer—for which the Examiner relies on Roeder in the first ground of rejection. Cf. Final Act. 5–6. We additionally note that, in connection with an alternative ground of rejection of claims 1–8 based on the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, Roeder, and Kinoshita (as discussed below), the Examiner expressly finds that “Kim as modified by Perng does not [disclose] wherein the zirconium layer has a thickness ranging from about 250 Angstroms to about 900 Angstroms.” Id. at 20 (emphasis added). We determine the Examiner does not adequately support this ground of rejection with findings that the applied references teach or suggest a zirconium dioxide layer having a thickness of 250 Å or greater, as recited in independent claim 1. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8 on this basis. Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 13 3. Claims 1–8: Kim, Perng, Roeder, and Kinoshita7 The Examiner additionally rejects claims 1–8 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, Roeder, and Kinoshita. Final Act. 19– 24. The Examiner relies on Kim in a manner similar to the Examiner’s reliance on Nam, discussed above. See id. at 19–20 (finding Kim “discloses a channel layer (item 130) comprising an amorphous silicon layer (item 130 paragraph 4) disposed on a substrate (item 100); [and] a gate insulating layer (item 120) disposed on the amorphous silicon layer (item 130)”) (citing Kim Figs. 2, 4, 6, and associated text) (bolding omitted). The Examiner relies on Perng, Roeder, and Kinoshita in the same manner as in the ground based on Nam, as discussed above (see supra Section A.1). See id. at 20–24. Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for this ground as it does for the ground based on the Nam as the primary reference. See Appeal Br. 17–18. In particular, as to Kim, Appellant argues Kim discloses having at least one layer, but never teaches having a film of one or more layers having different compositions. Kim specifically uses the term “or”[,] which means the one or more layers have the same composition, such as at least one insulation layer of SiO2, or at least one insulation layer of SiN, or at least one insulation layer of Al2O3, or at least one insulation layer of ZrO2. There is no teaching in Kim that one or more layers means two or more layers of different compositions. Id. at 14, 17. Appellant additionally argues Kim is silent as to forming the 7 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 1–8 collectively on this ground. Appeal Br. 17–18. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2–8. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1–8 on this ground based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 14 specific layer stack as claimed, and the Examiner fails to provide “the required evidence to suggest why” the ordinarily skilled artisan would have created the specific, claimed layer stack based on the teachings of the applied references. See id. Appellant then presents the same arguments for Perng on this ground as it does with regard to claim 1 above (see supra Section A.1.). See id. at 15, 17. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited teachings of the references, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. See Final Act. 19–24; Ans. 13–15. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection on this ground, for essentially the same reasons as we provide above in Section A.1. In particular, with regard to the recited composition of the layer stack, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kim teaches or suggests a multilayer film, including silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide; Perng teaches or suggests a silicon dioxide layer disposed on the channel layer and a zirconium dioxide layer disposed on the silicon dioxide layer; and Kinoshita teaches or suggests “an interface layer disposed on the zirconium dioxide layer and comprising titanium oxide or aluminum oxide,” and that “the gate insulation layer can be a combination of two or more films.” Final Act. 19–21; see also Ans. 13–15. Appellant’s arguments fail to address all of the Examiner’s findings about the teachings of the applied references regarding the composition of the layer stack, including the teachings of Perng and Kinoshita. Appellant’s arguments also are unpersuasive regarding the Examiner’s findings regarding the required thickness of certain layers, the recited K value of the dielectric layer, and the Examiner’s reasoning for combining the teachings Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 15 of the cited references (see Appeal Br. 14–18; Final Act. 19–24; Ans. 13– 15), for reasons similar to those we express above in Section A.1. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 on this basis. 4. Claim 9: Kim, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae The Examiner rejects claim 9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae. Final Act. 24–25. Building on the findings regarding independent claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, the Examiner finds Perng, as further evidenced by Kanegae, teaches or suggests the silicon dioxide layer has a K value ranging from about 3 to about 5 and a zirconium dioxide layer with a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50, as recited in claim 9. Id. at 25 (citing Perng 4:65–5:5, 1:54–67, 2:1–2, Figs. 2A, 2B; Kanegae ¶ 5). We are persuaded the Examiner’s findings are supported by the teachings of the applied references, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Appellant argues claim 9 is patentable for the same reasons claim 1 is patentable (Appeal Br. 18), and additionally contends the Examiner does not “provide[] the necessary evidence to show why one skilled in the art would [have been] motivated to modify the combination of Kim, Perng, Roeder with Kinoshita” by picking a silicon dioxide layer with the specified K value and also picking a zirconium dioxide layer with the specified K value, while maintaining the gate insulating layer with the specified range of K value (id.). Appellant’s conclusory statements regarding the Examiner’s alleged lack of reasoning supporting a motivation to have combined the teachings of the applied references do not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings as made, including the Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 16 Examiner’s findings regarding the teachings of Kanegae, which Appellant does not mention. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 on this ground. 5. Claims 1 and 5: Yang, Perng, and Roeder The Examiner additionally rejects claims 1 and 5 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yang, Perng, and Roeder. Final Act. 33–35. The Examiner relies on Yang in a manner similar to the Examiner’s reliance on Nam and Kim, as discussed above. See id. In particular, the Examiner finds Yang teaches or suggests a channel layer comprising an amorphous silicon layer disposed on the substrate and a gate insulating layer disposed on the channel layer. See id. at 33 (citing Yang ¶ 115, Fig. 7 and associated text). The Examiner also finds Yang teaches or suggests that the gate insulating layer “may be a single layer or a composite layer” comprising one or more of silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide. See id. at 33–34 (citing Yang ¶ 112, Fig. 7 and associated text). The Examiner additionally finds that Yang teaches or suggests, the gate insulation layer (item 140, 142 plus 144 plus 146) may have a multilayer structure having silicon dioxide layer (item 142, paragraph 56) on the channel layer (item 120); a zirconium dioxide layer (item 144, paragraph 57) disposed on the silicon dioxide layer (item 142): an interface layer (item 146) disposed on the zirconium dioxide layer and comprising titanium oxide or aluminum oxide (paragraph 58); wherein the silicon dioxide layer (item 142) is disposed between the channel layer (item 120) and the zirconium oxide layer (item 144). Id. at 34 (bolding omitted) (citing Yang ¶¶ 55–58, Figs. 3A, 3B, and associated text). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 17 The Examiner relies on Perng and Roeder in the same manner as in the ground based on Nam, as discussed above. See Final Act. 34–35. Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for this ground as it does for the ground based on Nam as the primary reference. See Appeal Br. 27–30. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the applied teachings of the references, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. See Final Act. 33–35. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection on this ground, for essentially the same reasons as we provide above in Section A.1. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5 on this basis. B. Claims 10–21 The Examiner rejects various ones of claims 10–21 over different combinations of references, including different primary references (Nam, Kim, and Yang). We address the Examiner’s findings, and Appellant’s arguments, as to the several combinations below. 1. Claims 16, 17, 19, 20, and 21: Nam and Perng8 Independent claim 16 is broader than claim 1, reciting a gate insulating layer comprising only two layers, without specificity as to material composition or thickness. See Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies on Nam as teaching or suggesting a layer stack with a channel layer disposed on a substrate, and a gate insulating layer disposed on 8 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19–21 collectively on this ground. Appeal Br. 11–13. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 17, 19, 20, or 21. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19–21 on this ground based on claim 16 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 18 the channel layer. Final Act. 11 (citing Nam, Fig. 7). The Examiner additionally finds Nam teaches or suggests that the gate insulation layer (item 113 in Figure 7) “can be a single layer or multilayer film including silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide or other materials.” Id. (citing Nam ¶ 84). The Examiner relies on Perng as teaching or suggesting a gate insulating layer disposed on the channel layer and a high K dielectric layer disposed on the channel layer, “wherein the gate insulating layer has a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50.” Id. at 12 (citing Perng 4:65–5:5, 1:52–67, 2:1–2, Figs. 2A, 2B). Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for this ground as it does for the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11–13; see supra Section A.1. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the applied teachings of the references, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. See Final Act. 11–13. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection on this ground, for essentially the same reasons as we provide above in Section A.1. with regard to claim 1, which recites the subject matter of claim 16 with additional limitations. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19–21 on this basis. 2. Claim 18: Nam, Perng, and Roeder With regard to claim 18, which depends from claim 16, the Examiner relies on Roeder in combination with Nam and Perng as teaching or suggesting the thickness of the zirconium dioxide layer of 250 Å or greater, finding Roeder teaches or suggests a thickness of the zirconium dioxide layer ranging from about 250 Å to about 900 Å. Final Act. 14 (citing Roeder, 4:35–45, Fig. 1). The Examiner’s findings are supported by the Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 19 teachings of the applied referencees, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Appellant argues claim 18 is patentable for the same reasons claim 16 is patentable (Appeal Br. 13), and additionally contends the Examiner has not “provided the necessary evidence to show why one skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Nam and Perng, with Roeder” by picking a silicon dioxide layer with the specified K value and also picking a zirconium dioxide layer with the specified K value, while maintaining the gate insulating layer with the specified range of K value (id.). Appellant’s conclusory statements regarding the Examiner’s alleged lack of reasoning supporting a motivation to combine the teachings of the applied references do not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings as made, including the Examiner’s statement of reasons for making the proposed combination. See Final Act. 14 (finding “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nam with the teachings of Roeder for the purpose [of] adhesion”). Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or a line of reasoning explaining why the Examiner’s stated rationale is erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusion reached by the Examiner. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH, 464 F.3d at 1368. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 on this ground. Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 20 3. Claims 10, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20: Kim and Perng9 Claim 10 is broader than claim 1, reciting a similar layer stack structure without some of the limitations of claim 1, such as specificity as to the composition (material, thickness) of the “high k dielectric layer.” See Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.) The Examiner rejects claims 10, 12, 14, and 15 (which depend from claim 10) and claims 17, 19, and 20 (which depend from claim 16) as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim and Perng. Final Act. 26–29. The Examiner relies on Kim in a manner similar to the Examiner’s reliance on Nam, discussed above. See id. at 26 (finding Kim “discloses a substrate (item 100); a channel layer (item 130) comprising a channel layer (item 130, paragraph 4) on the substrate (item 100); and a gate insulating layer (item 120) disposed on the channel layer (item 130)”) (citing Kim, Figs. 2, 4, 6, and associated text) (bolding omitted). The Examiner also finds Kim discloses “the gate insulation layer (item 120) can include at least one insulation layer of silicon dioxide and zirconium dioxide or other materials. This implies one or more layers.” Id. (bolding omitted). The Examiner then finds with this teaching of Kim, the gate insulating layer can in fact comprise[]: a (silicon dioxide) first interface layer disposed on 9 Appellant argues the rejection of claims 10, 12, 14, and 15 collectively on this ground, presenting arguments with regard to claim 10. Appeal Br. 18– 21. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 12, 14, or 15. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 10, 12, 14, and 15 on this ground based on claim 10 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant similarly argues the rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 collectively with regard to independent claim 16. Appeal Br. 21–22. Based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of the rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 on this ground based on claim 16 alone. Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 21 the channel layer; and a (aluminum oxide) second interface layer disposed on the (silicon dioxide) first interface layer, a high k dielectric layer (zirconium oxide) between the first interface layer and the second interface layer, wherein the gate insulating layer has a K value ranging from about 20 to about 50. Id. (citing Kim ¶ 33). The Examiner relies on Perng in the same manner as in connection with Nam, as discussed above (Sections A.3, B.2) for claims 1 and 10. See id. at 27 (finding Perng discloses a gate insulating layer having a K value within the recited range). Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error for essentially the same reasons argued above with regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 over Kim and Perng. See supra Section A.2.; Appeal Br. 18–22. Although we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 on that ground, our reasoning in that regard is premised on an additional limitation recited in claim 1 that is not recited in claims 10 or 16—namely, the requirement that the thickness of the dielectric layer exceed 250Å. See supra Section A.2. Such limitation is not recited in claims 10, 12, 14–17, 19, or 20. See Appeal Br. 33–35 (Claims App.). The Examiner’s findings on this ground are supported by the applied teachings of the references, and we adopt them as our own. See Final Act. 26–29; Ans. 11–13. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection on this ground, for essentially the same reasons as we provide above in Sections A.1. and A.3. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 on this basis. 4. Claims 13 and 18: Kim, Perng, and Roeder Claims 13 and 18 depend from claims 10 and 16, respectively, and additionally recite that the “high k dielectric layer has a thickness ranging Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 22 from about 250 Å to about 900 Å.” Appeal Br. 34 (Claims App.). The Examiner builds on the findings for independent claims 10 and 16, and additionally relies on Roeder as teaching or suggesting the required thickness of the dielectric layer. Final Act. 29–30. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the applied teachings, and we adopt them as our own. Appellant argues claims 13 and 18 are patentable for the same reasons claims 10 and 16 are patentable (Appeal Br. 23), and additionally contends the Examiner does not “provide[] the necessary evidence to show why one skilled in the art would [have been] motivated to modify [the combination of] Kim and Perng with Roeder” by selecting a high K dielectric layer with the specified thickness and material while maintaining the gate insulating layer with the specified range of K value (see id.). Appellant’s conclusory statements regarding the Examiner’s alleged lack of reasoning supporting a motivation to combine the teachings of the applied references do not persuade us of Examiner error in the rejection. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings as made, including the Examiner’s statement of reasons for making the proposed combination. See Final Act. 30. Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or a line of reasoning explaining why the Examiner’s stated rationale is erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusion reached by the Examiner. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH, 464 F.3d at 1368. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 18 on this ground. Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 23 5. Claims 10 and 16: Yang and Perng The Examiner additionally rejects claims 10 and 16 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yang and Perng. Final Act. 30–33. The Examiner relies on Yang in a manner similar to the Examiner’s reliance on Yang with regard to claim 1, discussed above. See id.; see Section A.5. In particular, the Examiner finds Yang teaches or suggests a substrate, a channel layer disposed on the substrate, and a gate insulating layer disposed on the channel layer. See id. at 30 (citing Yang, Fig. 7 and associated text). The Examiner also finds Yang teaches or suggests that the gate insulating layer “may have a multilayer structure having a first interface layer (item 142) comprising silicon dioxide (paragraph 56); a second interface layer (item 146) comprising titanium oxide (paragraph 58); and a high k dielectric layer (item 144 (paragraph 57) disposed on the first and second interface layer (items 142 and 146).” Id. at 31 (bolding omitted) (citing Yang ¶¶ 55–58, Figs. 3A, 3B and associated text). The Examiner relies on Perng and Roeder in the same manner as in the ground rejecting claim 1 based on Yang and Roeder, as discussed above, and also as in the rejection of claim 10 over the combination that includes Kim as a primary reference. See Final Act. 31–32; see Sections A.5, B.3. Appellant presents essentially the same arguments for this ground as it does for those grounds. See Appeal Br. 23–27. The Examiner’s findings are supported by the applied teachings of the references, and we adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. See Final Act. 30–33. We are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection on this ground, for essentially the same reasons as we provide above in Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 24 Sections A.5. and B.3. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 16 on this basis. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nam, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19–21 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nam and Perng. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as obvious over the combined teachings of Nam, Perng, and Roeder. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim and Perng. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, Roeder, and Kinoshita. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, and Kanegae. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 12, 14–17, 19, and 20 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim and Perng. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 18 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kim, Perng, and Roeder. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 16 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yang and Perng. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yang, Perng, and Roeder. Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 25 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9 103 Nam, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, Kanegae 1–9 16, 17, 19– 21 103 Nam, Perng 16, 17, 19– 21 18 103 Nam, Perng, Roeder 18 1–8 103 Kim, Perng 1–8 1–8 103 Kim, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita 1–8 9 103 Kim, Perng, Roeder, Kinoshita, Kanegae 9 10, 12, 14– 17, 19, 20 103 Kim, Perng 10, 12, 14– 17, 19, 20 13, 18 103 Kim, Perng, Roeder 13, 18 10, 16 103 Yang, Perng 10, 16 1, 5 103 Yang, Perng, Roeder 1, 5 Overall Outcome 1–10, 12–21 Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, as summarized above, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (2012). TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2013). Appeal 2021-002432 Application 16/685,074 26 AFFIRMED