Ex Parte Letz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2014

11750567 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/750,567 05/18/2007 Tobias Letz 2000.144900/DE0797 1315
92585 7590 05/09/2014
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C.
10333 Richmond, Suite 1100
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
PARKER, ALLEN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2014 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 TOBIAS LETZ, MATTHIAS LEHR,
JOERG HOHAGE, and FRANK KUECHENMEISTER
____________________

Appeal 2012-002956
Application 11/750,567
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-
3, 5-15, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a).
We reverse for the reasons stated by Appellants in their briefs and add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Appeal 2012-002956
Application 11/750,567
2
Appellants’ claims are directed to a method for forming integrated
circuits and, specifically, to a technique for forming a passivation layer
without a terminal metal. Claims 1 and 10 are the only independent claims.
Claim 1 requires steps of determining the nitrogen content of a surface
of a passivation layer of a device in which the passivation layer has been
subject to a process of patterning an aluminum-based terminal metal layer
stack formed thereon, determining a target range for nitrogen content based
on the nitrogen content, and forming a second passivation layer in a second
device having a second nitrogen content within the target range.
Claim 10 requires steps of determining the concentration of nitrogen
in a surface portion of a passivation layer after patterning an aluminum-
based metal layer stack formed thereon, and forming a second passivation
layer on a second device that does not comprise an aluminum-based terminal
metal layer stack formed thereon, and reducing a concentration of nitrogen
in a surface portion of said second passivation layer to a concentration range
based on said determined concentration of nitrogen in said surface portion of
said first passivation layer subjected to said patterning process.
We need only concern ourselves with the rejection of the two
independent claims. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Shroff1 in view of Morken2 and as evidenced by
referenceforbusiness.com3 and customplushtoys.com.4 The Examiner rejects
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Shroff in view of

1 US 6,500,750 B1 issued Dec. 31, 2002.
2 US 6,657,707 B1 issued Dec. 2, 2003.
3 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SMALL BUSINESS,
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Op-Qu/Prototype.html (last
visited Oct. 22, 2010).
4 CUSTOM PLUSH TOYS, Step by Step,
http://www.customplushtoys.com/step.shtml (last visited Oct. 22, 2010).
Appeal 2012-002956
Application 11/750,567
3
Verhaegh5 and Morken and as evidenced by referenceforbusiness.com and
customplushtoys.com. The Examiner further rejects claim 10 as obvious
over Kao6 in view of Verhaegh and as evidenced by
referenceforbusiness.com and customplushtoys.com.
All of the rejections rely upon the referenceforbusiness.com and
customplushtoys.com website documents as evidence that it was known in
the art to make copies of a prototype/template, and manufacture a plurality
of devices based on the template, i.e., what the Examiner calls a process of
research and development, to support the conclusion that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have followed the sequence of
steps of claims 1 and 10 to produce a prototype (Ans. 8-12, 20-24, and 29-
32).
While we agree with the Examiner that it is generally known to
manufacture prototypes and make copies of devices, we also agree with
Appellants that the general concept of forming prototypes would not have
suggested the specific steps of Appellants’ claimed process to one of
ordinary skill in the art. The steps of claims 1 and 10 involve more than
merely recreating a method used to form a first device to form a second
device with the associated conventional process control and testing. Rather,
the steps involve forming a second device with a passivation layer surface
having a different history of processing. The second passivation layer has
no history of being subject to patterning of an aluminum-based terminal
layer stack, but the second passivation layer surface has a nitrogen content
based on the nitrogen content of a first passivation layer that has been

5 US 6,198,155 B1 issued Mar. 6, 2001.
6 US 6, 249,044 B1 issued June 19, 2001.
Appeal 2012-002956
Application 11/750,567
4
subjected to a patterning an aluminum-based terminal metal layer stack.
This is not merely a process of copying the first device.

REVERSED
bar