Ex Parte Pacha et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 201613270592 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/270,592 10/11/2011 51092 7590 04/01/2016 ESCHWEILER & AS SOCIA TES LLC 629 EUCLID A VENUE, SUITE 1000 NATIONAL CITY BUILDING CLEVELAND, OH 44114 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christian Pacha 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. INFAP242USA 2293 EXAMINER LAPPAS, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2827 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/01/2016 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): Docketing@eschweilerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTIAN P ACHA, TIM SCHONAUER, and MICHAEL KUND Appeal2014-003822 Application 13/270,592 Technology Center 2800 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. PERCURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu3 and Datta. 4 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 5 1 Appellants identify the Real Party of Interest as Infineon Technologies AG. Appeal Br. 1. 2 Claims 13 and 14 have been withdrawn from consideration and are not before us on appeal. 3 Liu, US 2008/0121862 Al, published May 29, 2008 ("Liu"). 4 Datta et al., US 2005/0237850 Al, published Oct. 27, 2005 ("Datta"). 5 Our decision refers to the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed April 8, 2013, Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed October 8, 2013, the Examiner's Appeal2014-003822 Application 13/270,592 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of interacting with a resistive memory (see, e.g., claim 1 ). Appellants disclose that conventional memory cells are vertically fabricated, which generates topological height differences, an undesirable result in the fabrication of circuits. Spec. i-fi-14--5. Appellants disclose a memory cell including a resistive memory element coupled to a fin of a multi gate field effect transistor select device. Spec. i-f 16. The multi gate field effect transistor select device and the memory element are arranged in a lateral manner, which provides a small programmable volume and avoids height differences. Spec. i120. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of interacting with a resistive memory, the method compnsmg: controlling current through a fin or multiple connected fins of a multi gate field effect transistor; and interacting with a programmable volume portion of a resistive memory element abutting an end of the fin. Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 8. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-9, 11, and 12 over Liu and Datta The dispositive issue on appeal for claim 1 is whether there would have been a reason to modify the field effect transistor of Liu to use the multi gate field effect transistor of Datta. Answer (Ans.) mailed December 10, 2013, and Appellants' Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed February 10, 2014. 2 Appeal2014-003822 Application 13/270,592 The Examiner finds Liu discloses a method of interacting with a resistive memory comprising controlling current through a fin or multiple connected fins of a field effect transistor and interacting with a programmable volume portion of a resistive memory element. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Liu does not disclose a multi gate field effect transistor. Id. The Examiner finds Datta discloses controlling current through a fin of a multi gate field effect transistor for the purpose of improving stability. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use the multi gate field effect transistor of Datta in the method of Liu to improve stability. Id. Appellants contend there would have been no reason to modify Liu in view of Datta because the modification would have rendered Liu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 4--5 and Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants assert Datta uses high drive currents in non-planar tri-gate transistors to improve the stability of a memory cell. Appeal Br. 5 and Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend Liu addresses a problem of drive currents decreasing, due to the size of memory cells decreasing, by tapering an electrode to increase current density at an amorphous region of the phase change material of a memory cell. Appeal Br. 5 and Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants assert "the intended purpose of Liu is to provide sufficient energy to the phase change region without having to increase drive current." Appeal Br. 5. In view of this, Appellants argue the solution disclosed by Datta is not applicable to Liu and modifying Liu in view of Datta would frustrate the intended purpose of Liu or render Liu inoperable. Appeal Br. 5-6. Appellants' arguments fail to persuade us the Examiner reversibly erred. Appellants have not demonstrated, either via evidence or technical reasoning that using higher drive currents for transistors would render the method of Liu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or otherwise conflict with the problem Liu 3 Appeal2014-003822 Application 13/270,592 is directed to. Datta discloses using higher drive currents for transistors to improve the stability of memory cells. Datta i-f 23. Appellants argue the use of the higher drive currents would conflict with Liu's desire for lower currents, but this is not the problem addressed by Liu. Liu states that as memory cell sizes decrease, currents and the durations of applied currents decrease. Liu i-f 11. However, the statement cited by Appellants is in the context of a general discussion of the magnitude and duration of currents used to make the phase change material of a memory cell change between crystalline and amorphous phases. Id. The citations to the disclosure of Liu made by Appellants do not demonstrate Liu considered reduced drive currents to be the problem, as asserted by Appellants. The problem addressed by Liu is the occurrence of an amorphous region within the phase change material at a location separate from the electrode used to change the phase change material between amorphous and crystalline states. Liu i-f 8. Liu discloses this occurs because the hottest region produced by the electrode is located within the phase change material, away from an interface between the electrode and the phase change material. Id. Liu discloses that, when the amorphous region is located away from the interface, a memory cell will remain in a low resistance memory state and the phase change material cannot be converted back to a high resistance memory state. Id. To address this problem, Liu discloses the use of a tapered electrode having its smallest cross-sectional area and highest resistivity closest to the phase change material so heat generated by the tapered electrode is close to the interface between the electrode and phase change material, which prevents the separation of the amorphous region from the electrode. Liu i-fi-1 29, 30, 36, and 48. Thus, Liu is directed to a different problem than the problem asserted by Appellants. 4 Appeal2014-003822 Application 13/270,592 Appellants have not shown, by evidence in the record or persuasive argument, that the use of higher drive currents would interfere with Liu's goal of preventing the separation of an amorphous region in a phase change material from the electrode effecting phase changes in the phase change material. For example, Appellants do not direct our attention to any citation in Liu to support the argument that "the intended purpose of Liu is to provide sufficient energy to the phase change region without having to increase drive current." Appeal Br. 5. To the contrary, as discussed above, Liu is concerned with preventing the separation of an amorphous portion of a phase change material from the electrode effecting the phase changes of the phase change material. Moreover, the disclosure of Datta provides a reason to modify the transistor of Liu to use the multi gate field effect transistor of Datta. The Examiner finds Datta discloses a multi gate field effect transistor provides improved stability and concludes it would have been obvious to modify the transistor of Liu in view of Datta. Ans. 2-3. Appellants fail to show that the use of Datta's multi gate field effect transistor would not reasonably improve stability in Liu's process. Therefore, Appellants have not met their burden of providing persuasive argument or evidence to rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of unpatentability. Appellants do not provide separate arguments for claims 2-9, 11, and 12, which depend from claim 1. For the reasons discussed above and for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer, the§ 103 rejection of claims 1-9, 11, and 12 over 5 Appeal2014-003822 Application 13/270,592 the combination of Liu and Datta is sustained. Rejection of Claim 10 over Liu and Datta Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and further recites "wherein the multi gate field effect transistor and the programmable volume portion are laterally disposed from one another." In the rejection of claim 10 over Liu and Datta, the Examiner finds Liu discloses a lateral disposition of a transistor and programmable volume portion of a resistive memory element. Final Act 5---6. Appellants argue Figure 10 of Liu depicts a schematic representation of memory cell and access transistors without disclosing device geometry and layout of the memory cells and transistors with respect to one another. Appeal Br. 6 and Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants' arguments are persuasive. "[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case ofunpatentability." In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Figure 10 of Liu does not support the Examiner's finding that Liu discloses a lateral disposition because, as Appellants argue, Figure 10 depicts a schematic, rather than a spatial, arrangement for a transistor and a programmable volume portion of a resistive memory element. In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner finds the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "lateral" as "of or relating to the side." The Merriam-Webster definition of "lateral" does not provide any support for the Examiner's finding because Figure 10 does not depict a transistor and memory element side by side with one another or in any particular spatial arrangement. Instead, the Merriam-Webster definition demonstrates the prior art should disclose or suggest a multi gate field effect transistor and the programmable 6 Appeal2014-003822 Application 13/270,592 volume portion of a resistive memory element side by side with one another in order to disclose a lateral disposition between the transistor and the programmable volume portion. On this record, the Examiner has failed to show Liu's Figure 10 depicts such an orientation. Therefore, the Examiner did not meet the initial burden of setting forth a prima facie case of unpatentability. For the reasons described above, we do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claim 10 over the combination of Liu and Datta. DECISION On the record before us: A. the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Liu and Datta is affirmed; and B. the Examiner's rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Liu and Datta is reversed. 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 ). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation