Ex Parte Bez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2017

13158291 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2017)

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.
13/158,291 06/10/2011 Roberto Bez 303.C15US3 9076
73115 7590 05/26/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/MICRON
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
GOODWIN, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2817
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/26/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERTO BEZ, FABIO PELLIZZER,
MARINA TOSI, and ROMINA ZONCA
Appeal 2016-004073
Application 13/158,2911
Technology Center 2800
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1—10, 21—28, and 33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Micron Technology, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Br. 2. Subsequently, an assignment from Micron Technology, Inc. to
Ovonyx Memory Technology LLC was filed on Sept. 1, 2016.
2 This decision makes reference to the Specification filed June 10, 2011
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Dec. 10, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed Apr. 1, 2015 (“Br.”), and the Examiner’s Answer dated
Sept. 29, 2015 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2016-004073
Application 13/158,291
The subject matter of this appeal relates to phase change memory
cells. Spec. 1:5. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed elements italicized):
1. A process of manufacturing a phase change memory
cell, the process comprising:
forming a heating layer to form a resistive element
including a first thin portion having a first sublithographic
dimension in a first direction, the first sublithographic dimension
based on a thickness of the heating layer, the resistive element
having a cup-like shape with a bottom portion and wall portions
extending substantially vertically therefrom, the wall portions
forming a generally circular shape when viewed from above the
walls toward the bottom portion, the wall portions further having
an uppermost top portion that is substantially parallel to and
spaced apart from the bottom portion, a thickness of the wall
portions being substantially equal to the first sublithographic
dimension in the first direction;
forming a mold layer coupled to the uppermost top portion
of the cup-like shape;
forming a first lithographic opening in the mold layer;
forming spacer portions having inwardly sloped sidewalls
from an uppermost portion of the mold layer toward the
uppermost top portion of the cup-like shape so as to further
reduce an open area of the first lithographic opening at only a
single contact area with the uppermost top portion of the cup-like
shape, the spacer portions defining a slit at the single contact
area, the slit having a second sublithographic dimension, the
second sublithographic dimension being in a second direction
that is substantially transverse to the first direction; and
forming a phase change layer comprising a second thin
portion inside the second sublithographic dimension of the slit,
the phase change layer being thermally coupled to the resistive
element at the single contact area at the uppermost top portion
of the cup-like shape to change a resistivity value of the phase
change layer based on an amount of heat generated by the
resistive element at the single contact area.
2
Appeal 2016-004073
Application 13/158,291
The Examiner maintains, and Appellants appeal, the rejection of
claims 1—10, 21—28, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Maismon I,3 Maimon II,4 Wicker,5 and additional references. Ans. 2; Br. 1.
Appellants argue the subject matter of independent claim 1, and rely on
those same arguments for patentability of claims 2—10, 21—28, and 33. Br.
16—17. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), and in view of the
lack of arguments over the subsidiary rejections, claims 2—10, 21—28, and 33
will stand or fall together with claim 1.
OPINION
The dispositive issues for this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in
(1) combining Wicker and Maimon II with Maimon I and (2) finding that the
combination teaches or suggests the process recited in claim 1.
After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both
Appellants and the Examiner, we affirm the stated rejection.
It is the Examiner’s position that the combination of Maimon I,
Maimon II, and Wicker suggests the subject matter of claim 1 for the
reasons stated on pages 2—5 of the Final Action and pages 2—3 of the
Answer.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants argue that Wicker (1) fails to disclose
forming a cup like electrode, (2) “is unconcerned about forming a memory
material within a slit having a sublithographic dimension”, and (3) “is
unconcerned whether the material is formed at only a single contact point”
3 Maimon et al., US 6,733,956 B2, issued May 11, 2004 (“Maimon I”).
4 Maimon et al., US 6,613,604 B2, issued Sept. 2, 2003 (“Maimon II”).
5 Wicker, US 6,429,064 Bl, issued Aug. 6, 2002.
3
Appeal 2016-004073
Application 13/158,291
because Wicker’s method “reduces or eliminates the need for precise
alignment issued of the memory material over the electrode.” Br. 13—14.
According to Appellants, Wicker “is attempting to solve a very different
problem” from that contemplated by the claim and “a person of ordinary
skill in the art would not even consider the teachings of Wicker to be
relevant, much less teach or suggest[] the claims of the Application.” Id. at
14.
Regarding Maimon II, Appellants acknowledge that “the Examiner
relied exclusively on Maimon II simply to teach using sidewall spacers to
reduce a size of the trench”, but argue that because Maimon II teaches a
planar heating layer formed over the conductive sidewall layer, a skilled
artisan “would not consider combining the teachings of Maimon I with
Maimon II and Wicker since the combination would require a significant
change in the respective functions of the cited references.” Id. at 15
(emphasis omitted) (quoting Maimon II 5:38—52). Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s rejection over the combination of cited art “is merely conclusory
with no actual support found in any combination of Maimon I, Maimon II,
or Wicker” and that “there was no rational argument providing a legal nexus
between the referenced portions and the language of the claims.” Id.
The Examiner responds that the sub-lithographic dimension recited in
claim 1 “is not a fixed term and has changed and will change as technology
progresses, therefore the meaning of sub-lithographic is variable.” Ans. 2.
The Examiner further responds that Maimon I and Maimon II are relied
upon for disclosing the cup and forming the memory material in a slit, not
Wicker. Id. The Examiner also finds that “Wicker clearly teaches that a
single contact area is desirable and teaches methodology to insure that the
4
Appeal 2016-004073
Application 13/158,291
memory material can only have a single contact area with the conductive
electrode.” Id. at 3 (citing Wicker 3:20-35 for disclosing that “[cjontact
with only one portion reduces the contact area which improves the setting
and resetting ability of the device” improving the device’s performance).
Regarding Maimon II disclosing a conductive layer between the electrode
and the memory material, the Examiner responds that the conductive layer
of Maimon II was not relied upon in the rejection and is not required by
Maimon I. Id.
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
over the combination of Maimon I, Maimon II, and Wicker for the reasons
stated by the Examiner in the Final Action and Answer. Ans. 2—5; Final
Act. 2—3. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for a number of reasons.
First, Appellants do not dispute that Maimon I and Maimon II disclose all of
the elements of claim 1 except for forming the phase change layer to be
thermally coupled to the resistive element at a single contact area at the
uppermost portion of the cup-like shape of the resistive element, for which
the Examiner relies upon Wicker. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s
finding that Maimon I teaches forming a resistive element having a cup-like
shape as required by claim 1. Maimon I, 5:35—58, Fig. 6 (item 134, 136);
Final Act. 2—3. Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the
thickness of Maimon I’s resistive element wall portions has a
sublithographic dimension as required by claim 1. Maimon I, 5:35—58, Figs.
7b, 7c, 9b (items 134b, 134s, 136); Final Act. 2—3; Spec. 8:27—9:2 (defining
sublithographic dimension as meaning a linear dimension “smaller than 100
nm”). Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that Maimon
5
Appeal 2016-004073
Application 13/158,291
II discloses spacer portions to further reduce an opening to define a slit
having a sublithographic dimension as required by claim 1. Maimon II,
6:20-40, Fig. 12 (item 184); Final Act. 3^4. Therefore Appellants’
arguments (Br. 13—14) that Wicker fails to disclose these claim elements are
not persuasive because they fail to address the rejection made by the
Examiner.
Second, Appellants’ argument (Br. 15) that the Examiner’s reasons
for combining Maimon II and Wicker with Maimon I are conclusory and
unsupported is not persuasive because the Examiner does provide reasons
for combining and those reasons are reasonable and supported by the record
cited on appeal. Regarding modifying Maimon I with Maimon II’s spacers,
the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to do
so in order to reduce the size of the trench as taught by Maimon II. Final
Act. 4 (citing Maimon II, 6:20-40, Fig. 12). Regarding modifying Maimon
I’s contact areas between the phase change layer and the resistive element to
be a single contact area as disclosed by Wicker, the Examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to do in view of Wicker’s
teaching that reducing the contact area improves the setting and resetting
ability of the device and improves the device performance. Ans. 3 (citing
Wicker 3:20-35). The Examiner’s findings are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record cited on appeal. Appellants do not
direct us to any evidence that would rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Third, Appellants’ argument that Wicker solves a different problem
than that contemplated by the claimed invention (Br. 14) is unpersuasive
because the purpose of the patentee does not control the obviousness
inquiry. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
6
Appeal 2016-004073
Application 13/158,291
Fourth, Appellants’ argument that the combination would require a
significant change in the respective functions of the cited references (Br. 15)
is unpersuasive because each of Maimon I, Maimon II, and Wicker teach a
process of manufacturing a phase change memory cell. Final Act. 2-4. That
the Examiner has combined the teachings of three prior art patents all
directed to phase change memory devices and has relied upon the references
themselves for disclosing the benefits of the proposed modifications to
Maimon I indicates that this is a case where a person of ordinary skill would
have been able to fit the teachings of the multiple patents together to carry
out the process of claim 1. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary
skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Nothing in
the record before us shows that modifying Maimon I’s trench with the
spacers of Maimon II and reducing the contact areas as taught by Wicker
would frustrate the principle of operation of Maimon I.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm all of the Examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
7