Ex Parte Sills et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2017

13086321 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 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.
13/086,321 04/13/2011 Scott E. Sills MICS:0328 (10-0044) 3954
52142 7590 06/13/2017
FLETCHER YODER (MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.)
P.O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
NADAV, ORI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2811
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2017 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
manware@fyiplaw.com
Strickland @ fyiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT E. SILLS, and GURTEJ SANDHU
Appeal 2016-000683
Application 13/086,321
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—11, 14—18, 20, and 21. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Micron Technology, Inc.”
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2016-000683
Application 13/086,321
Claims 1 and 16 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
(emphasis added to highlight key limitations for purposes of this appeal):
1. A memory device, comprising:
a vertical resistive random access memory
(RRAM) cell comprising:
a first electrode;
a second electrode; and
an active material disposed between the first
electrode and the second electrode, wherein the active
material directly contacts the first electrode and the
second electrode respectively, wherein the active
material has variable resistive properties and
comprises a columnar grain structure defining a
plurality of grain boundaries oriented generally
perpendicular to the first electrode and generally
perpendicular to the second electrode.
16. A multiple-tier three-dimensional memory device
comprising: a first tier of word lines;
a second tier of word lines formed above the first tier of
word lines;
a cavity extending through at least one word line from
the first tier and at least one word line from the second tier,
wherein the at least one word line from the first tier and the
at least one word line from the second tier are in the same
vertical plane such that a circumference of the cavity is
surrounded by each of the at least one word line from the
first tier and the at least one word line from the second tier;
and
a vertical memory cell structure, wherein the vertical
memory cell structure is at least partially disposed in the
cavity, wherein the vertical memory cell structure
comprises:
an active material formed circumferentially within the
cavity, wherein the active material comprises a variable
2
Appeal 2016-000683
Application 13/086,321
resistive material switchable between a low resistive state
and a high resistive state; and
a conductive element formed within the cavity along an
inner circumference of the active material;
wherein a first resistive memory cell is formed by the
conductive element, the active material, and the word line
from the first tier, and wherein a second resistive memory
cell is formed by the conductive element, the active material,
and the word line from the second tier, wherein the second
resistive memory cell is above the first resistive memory
cell.
Independent claim 9 is similar to claim 1 except it does not require “a
columnar grain structure” and requires only “at least one grain boundary
orientated generally perpendicular” to two electrodes (Claims App’x; App.
Br. 7-12).
Appellants appeal the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):
I. Claims 1—11, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over the combined
prior art of Hsu et al., (US 2005/0243630 Al, published Nov. 3, 2005)
(“Hsu”), Samachisa et al., (US 2012/0147650 Al, published June 14, 2012)
(“Samachisa”), Stipe (US 2008/0304308 Al, published Dec. 11, 2008)
(“Stipe”), Suzuki (US 7,027,322 B2, issued Apr. 11, 2006) (“Suzuki”) or
Choi et al., (US 2008/0203377 Al, published Aug. 28, 2008) (“Choi”);
II. Claim 16—18, 20 and 21 as unpatentable over the combined
prior art of Samachisa and Kim (US 2011/0205796 Al, published Aug. 25,
2011) (“Kim”).
Appellants argue the claims in each of rejections I and II as a group
(App. Br. generally). Appellants focus their arguments on limitations
common to independent claims 1 and 9 for rejection I (App. Br. 7—12).
Appellants focus their argument on limitations of independent claim 16 in
rejection II (App. Br. 13—15).
3
Appeal 2016-000683
Application 13/086,321
ANALYSIS
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we find that the preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of
Appellants’ claims is unpatentable over the applied prior art. We sustain the
Examiner’s § 103 rejections because we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s determination of obviousness essentially for the reasons set out
by the Examiner in the Answer.
We add the following primarily for emphasis.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-
65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings
thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
With respect to rejection I, Appellants first argue that Hsu does not
teach or suggest that its active material has a grain boundary oriented
perpendicular to each of the first and second electrodes (App. Br. 7, 8), and
neither do any of the other applied references (id). However, the Examiner
does not rely upon Hsu to teach this feature (e.g., Ans. 3), but relies upon
either of Suzuki or Choi to suggest that the grain boundaries of Hsu’s active
material may indeed be “generally perpendicular” to the electrodes as
4
Appeal 2016-000683
Application 13/086,321
recited in the claims (emphasis added)2. Suzuki and Choi each disclose that
an active material may include grain boundaries that may reasonably be
viewed as “generally perpendicular” to at least one electrode and at least by
inference generally perpendicular to two electrodes as arranged, e.g., in Hsu
as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 12—17). Appellants’ arguments that
Choi depicts “grain boundaries 130 that are irregularly formed” is not
persuasive of error (App. Br. 11), especially in light of the claim language
which only requires a generally perpendicular orientation. Notably,
Appellants’ Specification describes that its grain boundaries/conductive
pathways may “still exhibit some degree of tortuousity” (Spec. 137).
Appellants have not directed our attention to any persuasive reasoning or
credible evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation that the
claims encompass the applied prior art combination is unreasonable. In re
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (it is
well established that “the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification” and if the Specification does
not provide a definition for claim terms, the PTO applies a broad
interpretation).
2 Appellants and the Examiner appear to agree that Stipe and Samachisa are
not necessary for the rejection of claims 1 and 9, as each was relied upon to
teach a feature (that a first electrode is arranged perpendicular to a second
electrode) that is not explicitly recited in either claim (see, e.g., Ans. 11;
App. Br. 9). Nonetheless, Appellants’ statement that their claims “appear to
teach the recited first and second electrodes ... as being generally parallel”
is not well taken (App. Br. 9; italics added for emphasis). The claims
reasonably encompass any orientation of the first and second electrode
relative to each other so long as there is a space for active material
therebetween.
5
Appeal 2016-000683
Application 13/086,321
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s determination that
one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than ordinary creativity, would
have used active material having grain boundaries generally perpendicular to
two electrodes as explained by the Examiner (Ans. generally). KSR Int’l
Co., 550 U.S. at 417 (2007) (the predictable use of known prior art elements
performing the same functions they have been known to perform is normally
obvious; the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it
does no more than yield predictable results); Ball Aerosol and Specialty
Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
(under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must
take account of the “inferences and creative steps,” as well as routine steps,
that an ordinary artisan would employ).
With respect to rejection II, Appellants argue that the applied prior art
does not teach the structure detailed in Figs. 4 and 10 (App. Br. 13, 14). This
is not persuasive of error; as the Examiner aptly points out, some of the
features discussed by Appellants are not recited in the claims (Ans. 18). In
re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (it is well established that
limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability). Appellants have also not adequately responded to the
Examiner’s detailed position regarding the interpretation of claim 16 (Ans.
18—27; Reply Br. 5—6 (Appellants merely point out and agree that claim 16
does not recite an active material circumferences the cavity in all four sides;
this fails to address the Examiner’s position that the claim encompasses
Samachisa/Kim structure because the applied prior art fairly teaches an
active material circumferences a cavity).
6
Appeal 2016-000683
Application 13/086,321
Consequently, after consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of all the claims on appeal for the reasons given above and
presented by the Examiner.
DECISION
The Examiner’s § 103 rejections are affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED
7