Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2022

2021004085 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2022)

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. 16/235,550 12/28/2018 Markus Zundel 1012-2356/2012P50349 US02 8378 57579 7590 03/31/2022 MURPHY, BILAK & HOMILLER/INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES PO BOX 1959 CARY, NC 27572-1959 EXAMINER SWAN, GARDNER W.S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2892 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2022 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MARKUS ZUNDEL, ANDREAS MEISER, HANS-PETER LANG, THORSTEN MEYER and PETER IRSIGLER Appeal 2021-004085 Application 16/235,550 Technology Center 2800 Before GEORGE C. BEST, LILAN REN, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 8-17. See Final Act. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG.” Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-004085 Application 16/235,550 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A semiconductor device, comprising: a semiconductor body including a first side and a second side opposite to the first side; a first dielectric disposed on the first side; a second dielectric disposed on the second side; one or more FET devices disposed at the first side; a first contact trench extending through the first dielectric at the first side; a first conductive material disposed in the first contact trench and electrically connected to the semiconductor body; a second contact trench extending through the second dielectric and into the semiconductor body at the second side; a second conductive material disposed in the second contact trench and electrically connected to the semiconductor body at sidewalls of the second contact trench. Claims Appendix (Appeal Br. 10). REFERENCES The Examiner’s rejections rely on the following prior art references: Name Reference Date Gardner US 6,150,708 Nov. 21, 2000 Kawakita US 2008/0023772 Al Jan. 31, 2008 REJECTION2 The Examiner maintains the following rejections: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 8-17 103 Gardner, Kawakita 2 The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 under section 112. Final Act. 2. Claims 5-7 have been cancelled. Response After Final Action of September 24, 2020. This rejection is therefore moot. Appeal 2021-004085 Application 16/235,550 3 OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in 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.”). Having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellant has identified reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Claim 13 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that Gardner is silent with respect to a first dielectric disposed on the first side; a second dielectric disposed on the second side; a first contact trench extending through the first dielectric at the first side; a first conductive material disposed in the first contact trench and electrically connected to the semiconductor body; a second contact trench extending through the second dielectric and into the semiconductor body at the second side; a second conductive material disposed in the second contact trench and electrically connected to the semiconductor body at sidewalls of the second contact trench. Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Kawakita for the teaching of a dielectric, first and second contact trenches, and first and second conductive materials. Id. at 4-5. The Examiner also finds Kawakita discloses that “an 3 Appellant argues for the patentability of claims 1 and 8-17 as a group with claim 1 as the representative claim. See Appeal Br. 4-9. Claims 1 and 8-17 stand or fall together. See id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-004085 Application 16/235,550 4 embedded SiGe layer in a recess formed on p-type source/drain regions of a PMOS transistor reduce[s] the compressed strain in the PMOS gate electrode, thereby improving the on-current of the device, and further discloses that contacts to an NMOS transistor can simultaneously be formed.” Id. at 5. The Examiner concludes a skilled artisan would have combined the prior art teachings to arrive at the semiconductor device recited in claim 1 because “the device of Gardner comprises both PMOS and NMOS transistors on both sides of the substrate[.]” Id. at 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred because “Gardner does not include any trenched contact structures” whereas Kawakita “discloses a device with contact trenches extending into only one side of the semiconductor body[.]” Appeal Br. 6, 7 (emphases removed). Appellant argues that the Examiner falsely assumed that a skilled artisan would have combined the prior art teachings “despite the fact that neither reference explains how to form contact structures on both sides of the semiconductor substrate.” Id. at 7. We are not persuaded because Appellant’s argument attacks the references individually, rather than considering what the combined references would have suggested to the person of ordinary skill in the art. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Appeal 2021-004085 Application 16/235,550 5 We are unpersuaded also because Appellant does not address the Examiner’s rationale. Compare Appeal Br. 6-7, with Final Act. 5. The Examiner’s obviousness analysis is supported with “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning . . . .” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)) (see Final Act. 5). Appellant’s argument that the obviousness analysis is lacking “with respect to the formation [of] trenched substrate contacts on both sides of the substrate” (Appeal Br. 7) is unpersuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s stated rationale. Appellant next argues that “[f]orming contact trenches on both sides of a semiconductor substrate presents certain technical challenges that do not exist when contact trenches are only formed on one side of the device.” Id. To the extent that Appellant argues that the Examiner’s proposed modification is beyond the ordinary skill, Appellant does not support the argument with evidence. See id; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation [of a known work], § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). “Attorneys’ argument is no substitute for evidence.” Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We are accordingly unpersuaded. Appellant lastly argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in finding that the proposed modification is “mere duplication of parts [which] has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Appeal Br. 8 (quoting Final Act. 5). Appellant repeats the argument that neither Gardner nor Kawakita discloses trenched contacts on both sides of a substrate and argues that “the obviousness question hinges on whether it would be obvious to provide an entirely new element in the Gardner reference, not whether it would be obvious to replicate an existing element.” Appeal 2021-004085 Application 16/235,550 6 Id. at 9. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because the argument again attacks the reference Gardner individually without addressing Kawakita where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of Gardner and Kawakita. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 8-17 103 Gardner, Kawakita 1, 8-17 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED