Ex Parte Singh et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 27, 2019

14303714 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/303,714 06/13/2014
123187 7590 03/01/2019
Williams Morgan, P.C.
6464 Savoy
Suite 600
Houston, TX 77036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jagar Singh
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.
EU728/4014.254200 5525
EXAMINER
GARCES, NELSON Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2814
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2019 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@wmalaw.com
nnolan@wmalaw.com
jjohn@wmalaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAGAR SINGH, JEROME CIA V ATTI, ANURAG MITT AL, and
MANFRED ELLER1
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
Technology Center 2800
Before MARK NAGUMO, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 21, and 23-26. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to semiconductor structures and,
more particularly, to "decoupling capacitors in semiconductor integrated
circuits." E.g., Spec. ,r 1; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below from
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc., which is also
identified as the real party in interest. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
page 14 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief (emphasis added to the
limitation focused on by the Appellant):
1. A semiconductor structure comprising:
a semiconductor substrate;
a first gate formed on the semiconductor substrate;
a first source/ drain region formed in the semiconductor substrate
adjacent to the first gate;
a second source/ drain region formed in the semiconductor
substrate adjacent to the first gate, wherein the first source/drain
region and the second source/drain region are in electrical
contact with each other by way of at least one of a metallization
layer, a local interconnect, or a silicide formation; and
a first contact region disposed over the first source/drain region,
wherein the first contact region is formed as a first plurality of
segments in an active area, and wherein a first intersegment gap
separates a segment of the first plurality of segments from an
adjacent segment of the first plurality of segments.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kamal
(US 2014/0246715 Al, filed Mar. 4, 2013 and published Sept. 4, 2014);
2. Claims 5-8 and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Kamal;
3. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kamal and
Huang (US 2013/0187235 Al, published July 25, 2013).
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
2
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner's rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action, and in the Examiner's Answer. See generally Final Act. 2-8;
Ans. 2-10.
Rejection 1
The Examiner finds that Kamal anticipates claim 1. As to the
requirement of claim 1 that "the first source/ drain region and the second
source/drain region are in electrical contact with each other by way of at
least one of a metallization layer, a local interconnect, or a silicide
formation," the Examiner cites paragraphs 3 1, 3 5, and 3 8 of Kamal as
disclosing such an arrangement. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 3-6. Those
paragraphs disclose a semiconductor structure in which multiple
source/drain regions are each connected to power rails or power return rails
by "conductive posts or pillars" which consist of conductive layers and an
interconnect layer. See Kamal ,r 31 ( discussing Figure 2, showing source
and drain regions of one transistor tied to the power rail, and the source and
ground of the other tied to the power return rail (ground)). Kamal ,r 35
describes formation of the connection by multiple conductive layers,
specifically MDI (i-f 36), MD2 (i-f 37), and VDO (i-f 38).
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant focuses on the power and power
return rails of Kamal and argues that those elements do not constitute a
"metallization layer." App. Br. 7-9 ("Accordingly, both of Kamal's power
and ground rails fail to meet the limitation of a 'metallization layer' of
claim 1. ").
That argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not require a
metallization layer. Claim 1 requires that the first/source drain region and
3
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
the second source/drain region "are in electrical contact with each other by
way of at least one of a metallization layer, a local interconnect, or a silicide
formation" ( emphases added). As set forth above, the paragraphs of Kamal
cited by the Examiner disclose that source/drain regions are each connected
to a power rail by "conductive posts or pillars" that may include "an
interconnect layer." Kamal ,r,r 34--38 ("An interconnect layer may then be
formed on the conductive layers to provide connections to power and power
return."). By focusing exclusively on whether the power rail or power return
rail of Kamal constitutes a metallization layer, the Appellant has not
meaningfully addressed the portions of Kamal cited by the Examiner, which,
as noted above, expressly disclose interconnect layers and other conductors
in addition to the power rail and power return rail. Accordingly, the
arguments focusing on the whether the power rail or power return rail
constitutes a metallization layer fail to identify reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner's rejections .... ").
Relatedly, the Appellant argues that "power rail 206 and ground rail
208 fail to place the first source/drain region 106 and the second
source/drain region 108 in electrical contact with one another." App. Br. 9.
That argument is not persuasive. As explained above, Kamal
discloses that the source/drain regions are connected to the power rails or
power return rails by "conductive posts or pillars." Kamal ,r 35. It is
unclear why two source/drain regions, each connected to the same power rail
by a conductive post or pillar, would not be considered to be "in electrical
contact with each other," particularly under the claim interpretation standard
4
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
applicable to this proceeding, i.e., broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); cf In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1405 (CCPA 1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of
evidence.").
Indeed, in the Reply Brief, the Appellant expressly states that
"Kamal' s first and second source drain regions are in electrical contact by
way of what may be considered to be two metallization layers ... , two local
interconnects ... , and a power rail or power return rail." Reply Br. 5. 2
However, the Appellant argues for the first time that, notwithstanding the
presence of both metallization layers and interconnect layers, Kamal' s
structure falls beyond the scope of the relevant claim language because
Kamal's structure also includes a power rail or power return rail. Id. at 5---6.
Claim 1 does not recite a closed Markush group ( e.g., using language
such as "group consisting of," which is presumed to be closed to unrecited
elements, see Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics
2 We recognize that the Appellant simultaneously asserts that "a power rail
and a power return rail prohibit electrical interconnection between devices
connected by a path including the power rail or the power return rail."
Reply Br. 5. The Appellant's arguments concerning the operation of power
and power return rails are attorney argument unsupported by evidence. See
Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1405. In any event, the claim language does not
require "electrical interconnection" between devices, and, as noted above,
the Appellant expressly states that Kamal's first and second source/drain
regions are in "electrical contact," as required by the claim. See Reply Br. 5.
Accordingly, we view the Appellant's principal argument essentially to be
one of claim interpretation; i.e., whether the recited "electrical contact" may
be provided only by at least one of a metallization layer, a local interconnect,
or a silicide formation.
5
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), but instead requires that the
first and second source/ drain regions are in electrical contact with each other
"by way of at least one of a metallization layer, a local interconnect, or a
silicide formation." As currently drafted, and under the claim interpretation
standard applicable to this proceeding (i.e., broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification), we do not agree with the
Appellant that the language of claim 1 excludes structures such as that of
Kamal that possess, as the Appellant concedes, see Reply Br. 5, a
metallization layer, an interconnect layer, and an unrecited element such as a
power rail. Cf In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319,321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ("[D]uring
patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be
recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification
imposed."). Rather, we interpret the relevant claim language as
encompassing subject matter in which the first and second source/drain
regions are in electrical contact with each other by any combination of
elements providing "electrical contact" so long as at least one of the
elements is a metallization layer, a local interconnect, or a silicide formation.
The Appellant provides no persuasive reason, based on the plain language of
the claim or the Specification, that its narrower proposed construction should
be adopted.
On this record, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
Rejection 2
Claims 5-7 and 23-25 recite specific ranges for the width of the inter-
segment gap of claims 1 and 21. 3 There is no dispute that Kamal discloses
an inter-segment gap but does not specifically identify the width of the gap.
See App. Br. 10.
Citing, inter alia, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir.
1990) ("[T]he applicant must show that the particular range is critical,
generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range."), the Examiner finds that the limitations of
claims 5-7 and 23-25 are dimensional limitations or variables that have not
been shown to impart any criticality or function to the claimed device
beyond what is disclosed by the prior art. Final Act. 5---6.
The Appellant does not dispute that aspect of the Examiner's analysis
and instead argues that "Kamal teaches away from an intersegment gap less
than about 40 nm," and that each of claims 5-7 and 23-25 "recite a lower
bound of the intersegment gap of less than about 40 nm." App. Br. 10-11.
That argument is not persuasive. For a reference to "teach away," it
must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See
In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Even assuming the
Appellant is correct that Kamal' s gap is greater than 40 nm, the claims at
issue have significantly larger upper range limits of 300 nm ( claims 5 and
23), 250 nm (claims 6 and 24), and 500 nm (claims 7 and 25). The
Appellant does not identify any portion of Kamal that criticizes or otherwise
discourages inter-segment gaps of less than 40 nm, but even if the Appellant
3 As currently drafted, claims 23-25 depend from claim 1, but the Appellant
states that they are "intended to depend on claim 21." App. Br. 9.
7
Appeal2018-002234
Application 14/303,714
were correct that Kamal teaches away from gaps of less than 40 nm, that
would not show reversible error in the rejection because none of the claims
requires a gap of less than 40 nm, and all of the claims permit a gap of
significantly larger than 40 nm. On this record, the Appellant's argument
that Kamal teaches away from inter-segment gaps of less than 40 nm fails to
establish reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 5-7 and 23-
25. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365.
As to claims 8 and 26, the Appellant raises no arguments beyond
reiterating the arguments concerning claim 1. See App. Br. 11-12. Because
we determine that the Appellant fails to show reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, we likewise determine that the Appellant
fails to show reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 26.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of the claims subject to
Rejection 2.
Rejection 3
As to Rejection 3, the Appellant argues that Huang does not remedy
the deficiencies of Kamal argued with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 12-
13. Because we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by
Kamal, we likewise affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 21.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 21, and 23-
26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
8