Mac D. Apodaca et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 7, 2019

14743132 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2019)

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.
14/743,132 06/18/2015 Mac D. APODACA HGST/0059US 9005
56000 7590 08/07/2019
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, L.L.P. / HGST
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
MAI, ANH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/07/2019 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):
PAIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
sversteeg@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MAC D. APODACA
and DANIEL R. SHEPARD
____________

Appeal 2018-003899
Application 14/743,132
Technology Center 2800
____________
Before GEORGE C. BEST, BRIAN D. RANGE, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b); claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d); and claims 1–6, 10, and
13–15 of Application 14/743,132 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Final
Act. (March 22, 2017). Appellants1 seek reversal of the rejection of claims

1 HGST, Inc. is identified as the Applicant, and Western Digital
Technologies, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-003899
Application 14/743,132
2
1, 2, 5, 10, and 13 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’132 Application describes methods for forming self-aligned
diodes array memory cells. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the ’132 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, with
emphasis added to the disputed limitation.
1. A method for depositing semiconducting material,
comprising:
(i) providing a layer of dielectric material on a crystalline
semiconductor substrate;
(ii) creating features in the dielectric material that expose the
substrate;
(iii) selectively growing a first semiconducting material on the
exposed substrate, wherein selectively growing the first
semiconducting material comprises an etchant gas to grow a
crystalline silicon material; and
(iv) growing a second semiconducting material either on the
exposed first semiconducting material using a low quality
selective deposition process or on the exposed first
semiconducting material and the exposed dielectric material
using a nonselective deposition process, wherein growing the
second semiconducting material comprises turning off the

2 After Entry of the Final Action, Appellants cancelled claims 3, 4, 6, and
15. Response After Final Action 5 (June 19, 2017). The Examiner entered
this amendment. Advisory Act. 1 (July 21, 2017).
Appeal 2018-003899
Application 14/743,132
3
etchant gas to grow either an amorphous silicon or poly-silicon
material.
Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Chang3 and Lee.4 Answer 2.
2. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Chang.5 Answer 2.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection with respect to
the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7–9. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the claims subject to this ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 2, 5, and 10 will stand or fall with claim 1. Id.
Appellants present two arguments for reversal of the rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of Chang and Lee. Appeal
Br. 7–9. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

3 US 7,858,960 B2, issued December 28, 2010.
4 US 2008/0286957 A1, published November 20, 2008.
5 The Examiner’s Answer purports to reject claim 15 on this ground and
does not mention claim 14. Answer 2. Claim 15, however, has been
cancelled. Response After Final Action 5 (June 19, 2017). We consider the
omission of claim 14 and inclusion of claim 15 in the Answer’s statement of
the rejection a typographical error.
Appeal 2018-003899
Application 14/743,132
4
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that Chang
describes or suggests the claim limitation “wherein growing the second
semiconducting material comprises turning off the etchant gas to grow either
an amorphous silicon or poly-silicon material.” Claim 1, Appeal Br. 7–8. In
particular, Appellants argue that
Chang discloses forming a crystal layer 125 and forming [an]
amorphous layer 130. (See col. 6[,] lns. 26-66; Figs. 5-6). Both
layer 125 and layer 130 are annealed to form a single crystal
layer 135. (See col. 6, lns. 26-66; Fig[]. 7). Chang is silent on
using an etchant gas during forming the crystal layer 125 or
during forming the amorphous layer 130 or during annealing to
form the single crystal layer 135.
Id. at 8.
We do not find this argument persuasive. As the Examiner found,
Chang states that single crystal layer 125 is grown using selective epitaxial
growth (SEG). Chang 6:28–30. As the Examiner also found, growing
silicon crystals via SEG is well known to use an etchant gas. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner cited Lee as evidence showing that the SEG process uses an
etchant gas. Id. (citing Lee Fig. 5). The Examiner further found that Chang
describes growing a second semiconducting material layer:
[A]n amorphous silicon layer 130 is formed on the resultant
semiconductor substrate 100, having the single crystal layer 125
form thereon, so as to completely fill the contact holes 115.
The amorphous silicon layer 130 may be formed by supplying a
silane (SiH4) gas, a hydrogen (H2) gas, and a phosphoric acid
(PH3) gas at a temperature in the range of 500~700° C. for a
duration in the range of 0.2 to 2 hours.
Chang 6:50–57.
As the Examiner correctly found, Chang describes growing single-
crystal layer 125 in a process that uses an etchant gas and then growing
Appeal 2018-003899
Application 14/743,132
5
amorphous silicon layer 130 a process that does not use an etchant gas. The
Examiner, therefore, correctly found that Chang inherently describes the step
of turning off the supply of etchant gas.
Second, Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 should be
reversed because the rejection erroneously uses a teaching from Appellants’
patent application. Appeal Br. 8–9. According to Appellants,
The rejection improperly uses the teaching of
[Appellants’] application to pick-and-choose aspects of Chang
and Lee et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. Although
Chang discloses an intermediate step of forming an amorphous
layer 130, both Chang[’s] and Lee et al.[’s] goal is to form a
single-crystal layer. Chang teaches an annealed single-crystal
layer 135. (See col. 6 lns. 26-66; Figs. 7). Lee et al. teaches a
combined first epitaxial silicon layer 208 and the second
epitaxial silicon layer 210. (See Paragraphs [0049]-[0050], Fig.
6)[.]
Id. at 9.
This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 is an open ended method
claim. This means that—notwithstanding Chang’s additional step of
annealing amorphous silicon layer 130 and single-crystal layer 125—the
process suggested by the combination of Chang and Lee renders the subject
matter of claim 1 prima facie obvious.
For the reasons set forth above, we have affirmed the rejection of
claim 1 as unpatentable over the combination of Chang and Lee. We,
therefore, also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 5, and 10 on this ground.
Rejection 2. Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection with
respect to the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 9–11. Accordingly, we select
claim 13 as representative of the claims subject to this ground of rejection.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 14 will stand or fall with claim 13. Id.
Appeal 2018-003899
Application 14/743,132
6
Appellant’s arguments for reversal of this ground of rejection are
substantially the same as those discussed in connection with Rejection 1. As
discussed above, we do not find these arguments persuasive of reversible
error.
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 13 as unpatentable over the
combination of Lee and Chang. We, therefore, also affirm the rejection of
claim 14 on this ground.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2,
5, 10, 13, and 14.
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