Ex Parte Ding et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

11277008 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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. 11/277,008 03/20/2006 Meng Ding 0180380 4116 16397 7590 09/17/2012 Farjami & Farjami LLP 26522 La Alameda Ave. Suite 360 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 EXAMINER GUMEDZOE, PENIEL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2891 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 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 MENG DING, LEI XUE, MARK RANDOLPH, ROBERT BERTRAM OGLE, JR., and CHI CHANG ____________ Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26-30, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2-5, 8, 12-15, 18, 21, and 25 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. RELATED APPEALS Although not identified by Appellants (Br. 2) or the Examiner (Ans. 2), we note that two co-pending patent applications identify the present application as a related application. Our review indicates that both of the related applications are the subject of co-pending related appeals: Application 11/461,998 Appeal 2010-000489 Application 11/462,009 Appeal 2011-007174 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to memory cell systems using silicon- rich nitride. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: Claim 1: A method of producing a memory cell system, said method comprising: providing a substrate; forming a charge-storing stack on the substrate, said charge-storing stack including a first insulating layer, a nitride region formed over said first insulating layer, an at least one silicon-rich nitride charge-storing region formed over said first insulating layer in direct contact with said nitride region, a second insulating layer formed over and in direct contact with said at least one silicon-rich nitride charge-storing region, and a high-K dielectric charge-blocking layer formed over and in direct contact with said second insulating layer; and Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 3 forming a gate on the charge-storing stack. The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Bass US 4,870,470 Sept. 26, 1989 Nomoto US 2003/0122204 A1 July 3, 2003 Rathor US 6,818,558 B1 Nov. 16, 2004 Melik-Martirosian1 US 6,894,932 B1 May 17, 2005 Orimoto US 2007/0029601 A1 Feb. 8, 2007 (filed Aug. 4, 2005) Claims 1, 11, 24, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orimoto and Nomoto. (Ans. 4-5). Claims 22, 26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orimoto, Nomoto, and Rathor. (Ans. 5-6). Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Melik and Bass. (Ans. 6-10). Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Brief and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUES The issues raised by Appellants’ contentions are as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding claim 1 to be an obvious combination of Orimoto and Nomoto? Did the Examiner err in finding claim 1 to be an obvious combination of Melik and Bass? 1 Melik-Martirosian is referred to herein and in the record as “Melik.” Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 4 ANALYSIS We have considered Appellants’ arguments (Br. 8-18) in light of the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 3-10) and explanations (Ans. 10-14) in response to Appellants’ arguments. We find the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Ans. 3-14) to be reasonable and persuasive and adopt them as our own. Our analysis and comments infra are for emphasis. Rejection of Claims 1, 11, 24, and 28 over Orimoto and Nomoto The Examiner finds that Orimoto teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 except “a nitride region [that is] formed over [a] first insulating layer, [having] at least one silicon-rich nitride charge-storing region formed over said first insulating layer in direct contact with said nitride region.” (Ans. 4; see Orimoto, Figs. 1, 4-9; ¶¶ [0019]-[0048]). In particular, the Examiner finds that Orimoto discloses a silicon-rich nitride (SiRN) charge storing region 135 (Ans. 4; see Orimoto, Fig. 1; ¶ [0041]) formed over a first insulating layer 130 (Ans. 4; see Orimoto, Fig. 1; ¶ [0020]). The Examiner finds that Nomoto teaches a silicon nitride layer CS1 (i.e., nitride region) formed over and in direct contact with a bottom dielectric film BTM (i.e., first insulating layer), and a silicon nitride charge storing layer CS2 (i.e., charge storing region) formed over the bottom dielectric film BTM and in direct contact with silicon nitride layer CS1. (Ans. 4; see Nomoto, Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0089]-[0090]). The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Nomoto’s nitride region CS1 over and in direct contact with Orimoto’s first insulating layer 130 with Orimoto’s silicon-rich nitride charge storing region Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 5 135 in direct contact with Nomoto’s nitride region CS1 to reduce operating voltage and increase speed. (Ans. 5; see Nomoto, ¶ [0090]). Appellants contend that neither Orimoto (see Br. 9) nor Nomoto (Br. 10) teaches “a charge-storing stack including a nitride region formed over a first insulating layer, and at least one SiRN charge-storing region formed over the first insulating layer and in direct contact with the nitride region, as is expressly required by independent claim[] 1 . . .” (id.). However, the charge-storing stack described in the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4-5) is based on a combination of Orimoto and Nomoto. In particular, Orimoto is relied upon for teaching the SiRN charge storing region and Nomoto is relied upon for teaching the nitride region (id.). “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellants additionally contend Nomoto does not teach “a second insulating layer formed over and in direct contact with a silicon-rich nitride charge-storing region, and a high-K dielectric charge-blocking layer formed over and in direct contact with the second insulating layer, as is additionally required by independent claim[] 1 . . . .” (Br. 11). This argument is unpersuasive because, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 12), Orimoto, not Nomoto, is relied upon to teach these limitations of claim 1 (see Ans. 4). See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Appellants further contend that one skilled in the art would not have combined Nomoto and Orimoto in the manner described by the Examiner to achieve the advantages described by Appellants’ Specification (Br. 9, 11). However, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 11-12), it is not necessary Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 6 for the combination suggested by the prior art to achieve the same advantages or results as those described by Appellants. [T]he problem motivating the patentee may be only one of many addressed by the patent’s subject matter. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct 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); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Appellants have failed to persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as an obvious combination of Orimoto and Nomoto. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 11, which was argued together with claim 1 (Br. 8-12); and (3) claims 24 and 28, which depend from claim 1 and 11 respectively and were not separately argued with particularity. Rejection of Claims 22, 26, 29, and 30 over Orimoto, Nomoto, and Rathor Claims 22 and 26 were argued based on their dependency from claim 1 and claims 29 and 30 were argued based on their dependency from claim 11. (Br. 12-13). Claims 22, 26, 29, and 30 were not separately argued with particularity. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth supra regarding claims 1 and 11, we will sustain the rejection of claims 22, 26, 29, and 30 as an obvious combination of Orimoto, Nomoto, and Rathor. Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 7 Rejection of Claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26- 28 over Melik and Bass The Examiner finds that Melik discloses all the limitations of claim 1 except the use of silicon-rich silicon nitride (Si3N4) (SiRN) for the charge- storing regions. (Ans. 6-7; see Melik, Fig. 2; col. 2, ll. 10-17; col. 3, l. 26– col. 9, l. 30). The Examiner further finds that Bass discloses that silicon-rich Si3N4 provides improved charge storing capacity over stoichiometric Si3N4 (Ans. 7; see Bass, col. 6, ll. 30-35), and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Bass’s silicon-rich Si3N4 for Bass’s charge storing regions “in order to increase the charge storing capacity of the device” (Ans. 7). Appellants contend that Melik does not teach “at least one SiRN charge-storing region over and in contact with a nitride region” (Br. 15; but see Br. 16) as allegedly recited in claim 1. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive as it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 or of the rejection made by the Examiner. Claim 1 recites that the “at least one silicon-rich nitride charge-storing region [is] formed over said first insulating layer” (emphasis added), not over the nitride region as asserted by Appellants. Further, the Examiner relies on Melik for teaching charge storage regions over a first insulating layer and in direct contact with a nitride region, i.e., Melik’s charge storing cells 144, 146 (Melik, col. 5, ll. 26-35; Fig. 2) over bottom dielectric layer 126 (Melik, col. 3, ll. 48-54; Fig. 2) and in direct contact with the portions of charge trapping layer 128 (Melik, col. 3, ll. 55-60; Fig. 2) that are between the charge storing cells, but relies on Bass to teach that charge storage regions can be formed from SiRN (see Bass, col. 6, ll. 30-35). (See Ans. 6-7). Such arguments against the Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 8 references individually, where the rejection is based on a combination, are not persuasive. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Similarly, Appellants contend, without identifying any specific deficiencies in the combination made by the Examiner, that “Bass, as cited in the Final Action, also fails to disclose or suggest any of the remaining structure required by independent claim[] 1 . . . .” (Br. 17). Appellants’ contention is unpersuasive as it argues against Bass individually, rather than the combination in the rejection made by the Examiner. Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Appellants contend that Melik fails to teach a structure that can achieve the improved erase performance discussed in the Specification (see Spec. 8:23–9:3) (Br. 15). Appellants further contend that the reason for combining Melik with Bass relied upon by the Examiner, i.e., higher charge storage capacity (see Ans. 7) is not a goal of Appellants’ invention. (Br. 17). Appellants’ contentions are unpersuasive because, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 14), in an obviousness analysis it is not necessary that the problem solved by the combination of prior art references be the same one addressed by Appellants’ invention. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. Appellants have failed to persuade us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as an obvious combination of Melik and Bass. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 6, 11, and 16, which were argued together with claim 1 (Br. 13-18); (3) claims 22-24, which depend from claim 1 and were not separately argued with particularity (Br. 18); (4) claims 7, 9, and 10, which depend from claim 6 and were not separately argued with particularity (id.); (5) claims 26-28, which depend from claim 11 and were not separately Appeal 2011-011507 Application 11/277,008 9 argued with particularity (id.); and (6) claims 17, 19, and 20, which depend from claim 16 and were not separately argued with particularity (id.). ORDER The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 11, 24, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orimoto and Nomoto is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 22, 26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Orimoto, Nomoto, and Rathor is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 6, 7, 9-11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22-24, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Melik and Bass is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010). AFFIRMED babc