Ex Parte Shieh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

12915712 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 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.
12/915,712 10/29/2010 Chan-Long Shieh 4674-A20 8163
29370 7590 08/28/2017
RORFRTA PARSONS
EXAMINER
15615 North 71st Street PIZARRO CRESPO, MARCOS D
Suite 106
Scottsdale, AZ 85254 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
rp@pgpct.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAN-LONG SHIEH, GANG YU, and FATT FOONG1
Appeal 2016-005563
Application 12/915,712
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as CBRITE Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005563
Application 12/915,712
Appellants request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A metal oxide semiconductor device comprising:
an active layer of metal oxide with a major surface;
a layer of gate dielectric overlying and in parallel abutting engagement
with a metal gate contact, the layer of gate dielectric having a first major
surface parallel and in contact with the metal gate contact and a second
major surface parallel with and opposed to the first major surface, and the
layer of gate dielectric comprising oxygen in the bulk and/or at the
first major surface; and
a layer of low trap density material positioned between the
active layer of metal oxide and the layer of gate dielectric,
the layer of low trap density material being thinner than the
layer of gate dielectric, the layer of low trap density material
having a first major surface parallel and in contact with the
active layer of metal oxide to form a low trap density interface
with the active layer of metal oxide and a second major surface
in parallel and in contact with the second major surface of the
layer of gate dielectric.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Takeda et al. US 5,340,999
(hereafter “Takeda”)
Kawasaki et al. US 6,563,174 B2
(hereafter “Kawasaki”)
Kang et al. US 8,299,470 B2
(hereafter “Kang”)
Aug. 23, 1994
May 13,2003
Oct. 30, 2012
2
Appeal 2016-005563
Application 12/915,712
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 2, 11, and 17 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 1 to 4, 6 to 12, and 14 to 18 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda and Kawasaki.
3. Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Takeda and Kawasaki as applied to claims 1,10,
and 17 above, and in further view of Kang.
ANALYSIS
To the extent that Appellant has presented substantive arguments for
the separate patentability of any individual claims on appeal, we will address
them separately consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Rejection 1
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 11, and 17—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. The Examiner states that there is support for the
low trap density material to be amorphous but that there is no support for the
material having a grain size “substantially less than 50 nm”. Ans. 3.
Before we can reach the merits of this rejection, the meaning of the
claim terms must be definite, and the phrase “substantially less than 50 nm”
is vague in that it is uncertain what grain size values are encompassed by
this phrase. As such, because of the indefmiteness of the claimed subject
3
Appeal 2016-005563
Application 12/915,712
matter, we are unable to resolve Rejection 1 on its merits. We thus reverse
this rejection. However, we emphasize that our reversal of this rejection is
because the claims are indefinite; hence, a decision has not been made based
on the merits. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63 (CCPA 1962).
Thus, we introduce a new ground of rejection of claims 2, 11, and 17—
19 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as
their invention; hence, we reject these claims as running afoul of the
requirements of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejections 2 and 3
Rejection 2 involves the rejection of claims 1—4, 6—12, and 14—18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable by Takeda and Kawasaki.
We select claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ presented arguments, and
can focus on claim 1 in resolving the issues pertaining to Rejection 2.
It is disputed as to whether Takeda’s silicon semiconductor layer can
be crystalline. This is of import because the rejection involves substitution
of Takeda’s silicon layer with the crystalline metal oxide layer of Kawasaki.
It is Appellants’ position that replacing an amorphous silicon film with a
metal oxide crystalline film is not a simple substitution as indicated by the
Examiner. Appeal Br. 24—25. The Examiner responds first by stating that
these materials are equivalent semiconductor materials. Ans. 7. However,
the Examiner does not direct us to adequate evidence in the record showing
that an amorphous silicon film is equivalent to a metal oxide crystalline film.
See Answer generally. The Examiner also responds by stating that Takeda
4
Appeal 2016-005563
Application 12/915,712
in fact teaches that the silicon semiconductor film can be amorphous or
crystalline. Ans. 7—8. However, a careful reading of Takeda in this regard
supports Appellants’ position that Takeda’s silicon semiconductor film is
amorphous. Takeda discloses that a microcrystalline film can be used, and
such a film is produced with glow discharge, whereby SiH4 gas, diluted with
hydrogen, is decomposed. Takeda, col. 3,1. 62—col. 4,1. 2. Takeda teaches
that this glow discharge method provides a layer comprising an amorphous
silicon and microcrystals discretely located. Takeda, col. 4,11. 1—15. Thus,
we agree with Appellants that Takeda does not teach a semiconductor film
that is not amorphous but crystalline.
We thus also agree with Appellants’ other stated argument that the
proposed modification is flawed because replacement of an amorphous film
with a crystalline film would cause lattice mismatch because of layering of
an amorphous gate insulator with a crystalline metal oxide semiconductor
film, which is discouraged by Kawasaki because Kawasaki teaches layering
of a crystalline gate insulator with a crystalline metal oxide semiconductor
layer (col. 8,11. 36—50 and col. 10,11. 23^40). Reply Br. 6. Takeda also
teaches that since semiconductor film 40 is amorphous, any deviation from
stoichiometric requirements is avoided. Takeda, col. 3,11. 18—26. In other
words, Takeda also advocates lattice matching by employing layers of same
structure.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 2. We also reverse
Rejection 3 because the Examiner does not rely upon the additional
reference of Kang to cure the aforementioned deficiencies of the
combination of Takeda in view of Kawasaki.
5
Appeal 2016-005563
Application 12/915,712
DECISION/ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject the claims on appeal
(Rejections 1—3) is reversed.
We enter a new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) of claims 2, 11, and 17—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provide that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
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).
REVERSED: $ 41,501b)
6