Zhenyu Lu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2020

14228247 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2020)

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.
14/228,247 03/27/2014 Zhenyu Lu P63504 2459
120376 7590 06/25/2020
Compass IP Law PC
4804 NW Bethany Blvd, Ste. I-2 #237
Portland, OR 97229
EXAMINER
BRADLEY, STEPHEN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2819
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2020 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):
admin@compassiplaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZHENYU LU, ROGER LINSDAY, and
SERGEI V. KOVESHNIKOV
____________

Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SNAY, 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 rejecting claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, 15, and 21–26. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies Intel Corp. as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

2
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to stacked circuit devices. Spec. ¶ 1. A three
dimensional stacked circuit device includes multiple decks of circuit
elements that are electrically connected by a highly doped hollow channel
and a conductive stop layer. Id. ¶ 11. According to the Specification,
providing a relatively thick insulator layer between decks permits using a
two-step etch process to form uniform hollow channels. Id. ¶ 21. Claim 1
reads as follows:
1. A circuit device comprising:
multiple decks of memory cells, the decks being stacked
on each other, wherein a deck includes:
multiple tiers of memory cells stacked on
each other; and
at least one channel extending through the
deck, the channel including a channel insulator,
and a doped polycrystalline material surrounding
the channel insulator at an end of the channel and
positioned between the multiple tiers of memory
cells and the channel insulator;
a conductive stop layer between a channel of a given
deck and a channel of an adjacent deck, wherein the conductive
stop layer is located over and completely covers the doped
polycrystalline material and channel insulator of the channel of
the given deck, and wherein the conductive stop layer is located
under the doped polycrystalline material surrounding the
channel insulator at the end of the channel of the adjacent deck;
and
an insulating layer between the given deck and the
adjacent deck, wherein the insulating layer is thicker than an
insulating layer between two adjacent tiers of memory cells,
and wherein the insulating layer is at least partially over and in
contact with a top surface of the conductive stop layer near
sides of the conductive stop layer.

Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

3
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added to highlight a key
recitation in dispute). Claim 9 recites an electronic device including
essentially the circuit device of claim 1 coupled to a touchscreen display.
Each remaining claim on appeal depends from claim 1 or 9.

REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 25, and 26 stand rejected2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Oh,3 Shim,4 and Baek.5
II. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Oh, Shim, Baek, and Tanzawa.6
III. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Oh, Shim, Baek, and Kim.7
IV. Claims 7 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Oh, Shim, Baek, and Choi.8
V. Claims 9–11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Oh, Shim, Baek, and Lee.9
VI. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Oh, Shim, Baek, Lee, and Kim.

2 The Examiner’s statement of this rejection includes claims 5 and 6. Final
Act. 2. However, claim 5 is not addressed in the body of the rejection and
claim 6 is canceled.
3 US 2010/0109065 A1, published May 6, 2010 (“Oh”).
4 US 2011/0065270 A1, published March 17, 2011 (“Shim”).
5 US 2013/0044531 A1, published February 21, 2013 (“Baek”).
6 US 2012/0273862 A1, published November 1, 2012 (“Tanzawa”).
7 US 2014/0024189 A1, published January 23, 2014 (“Kim”).
8 US 2010/0051910 A1, published March 4, 2010 (“Choi”).
9 US 2013/0215679 A1, published August 22, 2013 (“Lee”).
Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

4
VII. Claims 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Oh, Shim, Baek, Lee, and Choi.
VIII. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Oh, Shim, Baek, and Takahashi.10
IX. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Oh, Shim, Baek, Lee, and Takahashi.

OPINION
Rejection I: obviousness over Oh, Shim, and Baek
With regard to rejection I, Appellant separately argues claims 1 and
26. Appeal Br. 6–17. Appellant does not separately argue claim 2, 4, 8, or
25. These claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 1
With regard to claim 1 and relevant to Appellant’s arguments on
appeal, the Examiner finds Oh discloses a circuit device comprising stacked
memory cell decks, but fails to provide the recited insulating layer between
decks. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds Baek teaches separating stacked
decks with an insulating layer that is thicker than insulating layers between
adjacent memory cells within a deck. Id. at 3. The Examiner determines it
would have been obvious to provide Oh’s circuit device with an interdeck
insulating layer such as that taught by Baek to enhance insulation conductive
etch stops and conductive lines of the memory cells. Id.
Oh’s circuit device is exemplified in Figure 10A, which we reproduce
below.

10 US 2014/0264525 A1, published September 18, 2014 (“Takahashi”).
Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

5

Oh’s Figure 10A depicts a cross-sectional view of a nonvolatile
memory device. Oh’s depicted device includes insulating layers 624a
disposed between gate patterns CG1 in a lower deck, and insulating layers
624b disposed between gate patterns CG2 in an upper deck. Oh ¶ 119.
Active bar ACT1 connects semiconductor substrate 610 to each lower deck
gate pattern CG1 and conductive pad 646. Id. ¶¶ 123–124. Active bar
ACT2 similarly connects conductive pad 646 to each upper deck gate pattern
CG2. Id. ¶ 132.
Appellant argues “the memory device of Oh already includes an
insulating layer, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify or replace the insulating layer of Oh with the thicker
Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

6
insulating layer of Baek.” Appeal Br. 8. See also Reply Br. 3–4 (“Because
Oh already discloses an insulating layer between the cell gate patterns,
which presumably has sufficiently [sic] thickness to ensure operation,
adding an extra insulating layer or increasing the thickness of the insulating
layers of Oh would be unnecessary for operation, but would increase both
cost (in materials) and size of the resulting device.”).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of reversible error. The fact
that providing additional insulative material between decks would increase
cost and size does not negate the Examiner’s finding that additional
insulation advantageously would be provided between Oh’s lower deck
conductive pad and upper deck cell gate patterns. A tradeoff of one
advantage (increased electrical insulation) for another (cost and size) is not
persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination.
See Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and
disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to
combine.”).
Moreover, the Examiner explains that Shim would have provided a
reason to configure Oh’s conductive pad 646 such that it extended
completely over the underlying conductive channel (Final Act. 3), such that
conductive pad 646 would partially extend below upper deck cell gate
patterns, thereby warranting additional insulative thickness between lower
deck pad 646 and upper deck cell gate patterns (Ans. 3). Such a
configuration of conductive pad 646 would have been consistent with Oh’s
disclosure. See Oh ¶ 127 (“Alternatively, the first pad portion 646 may be
disposed on the top surface of the first sub-active bar ACT1. A sectional
Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

7
area of the top surface of the first pad portion 646 may be wider than a
sectional view of the top surface of the first sub-active bar ACT1.”).
Appellant does not persuasively address this line of the Examiner’s
reasoning.
Appellant additionally argues that “the structures and compositions of
Baek and Oh are significantly different” and, for that reason, “are likely to
include insulating layers with different dimensions.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appellant does not, however, persuasively explain why structural
differences between Oh and Baek would have precluded one of ordinary
skill from applying Baek’s teaching of providing a relatively thick interdeck
insulation to the multideck circuit device of Oh. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
[those] references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Rejection I as applied to each of claims 2,
4, 8, and 25 is sustained.

Claim 26
Claim 26 additionally recites that “a region of the insulating layer
between the given deck and the adjacent deck is between the top surface of
the conductive stop layer and the doped polycrystalline material.”
In rejecting claim 26, the Examiner states that Oh, when modified in
light of Shim and Baek, includes an insulating layer region positioned
Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

8
between a conductive stop layer of one deck and an orthogonally-oriented
doped polycrystalline channel of another. Final Act. 4. In support of that
finding, the Examiner offers an annotated partial copy of Figure 5C taken
from Baek. Id. Particularly, the Examiner interprets the structure in Baek’s
Figure 5C as including an insulating layer region that sits along an
imaginary line drawn from the horizontal surface of element 165 and a
vertical channel surface.
Regardless whether Baek depicts an arrangement that might
reasonably be viewed as providing an insulating layer region between a
conductive stop of one deck and channel of another, the Examiner offers no
explanation how Oh would have been modified to meet the structure recited
in claim 26. Merely pointing to a structural arrangement of elements in
Baek does not provide evidence sufficient to support a finding that the same
structural arrangement would have resulted in Oh if Oh were modified in
light of Shim and Baek. Absent some reasoned explanation of how Oh
would have been modified such that the recited structural arrangement
would have been met, the rejection is conclusory.
Accordingly, we do not sustain Rejection I as applied to claim 26.

Rejections II–IX
Appellant does not present particular argument directed to the
remaining rejections, except to rely on the arguments presented in
connection with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 17–22. Accordingly, each of
Rejections II–IX is sustained for the reasons set forth above in connection
with the rejection of claim 1.

Appeal 2018-008313
Application 14/228,247

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–5, 7–12, 14, 15, and 21–
25 is affirmed. The decision rejecting claim 26 is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 8,
25, 26
103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek 1, 2, 4, 8,
25
26
3 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Tanzawa
3
5 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Kim
5
7, 21 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Choi
7, 21
9–11, 15 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Lee
9–11, 15
12 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Lee, Kim
12
14, 23 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Lee, Choi
14, 23
22 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Takahashi
22
24 103(a) Oh, Shim, Baek,
Lee, Takahashi
24

Overall
outcome
1–5, 7–
12, 14,
15, 21–25
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART