DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on May 12, 2026. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11 and 16 have been amended. No new claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 successfully overcomes the objection to claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitations because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Limitation, “a first dielectric layer over the first electrode plate and the first capacitor dielectric, the first dielectric layer having an uppermost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric;” should be recited before the limitation, “wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer;”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 11 and 16, the claims recite, “the second dielectric layer distinct from the first dielectric layer” however the disclosure provides no support for this limitation. Specifically, Figure 3 shows a single dielectric layer 316 disposed over the capacitor electrodes and dielectrics. The specification does not describe the dielectric layer 316 as being separated into a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer nor does it describe dielectric layer 316 as including two distinct dielectric layers. Rather, the specification discloses dielectric material 316 disposed above the capacitor electrodes and dielectric layers.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 18-20 depend upon the respective independent claims and do not rectify the problem therefore, they are also rejected.
Regarding claims 2, 7, the claims recite, “perovskite high-k dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of a material comprising strontium, titanium and oxygen, a material comprising barium, titanium and oxygen, and a material comprising strontium, barium, titanium and oxygen” lacks support in the disclosure. The amended language is broader than the originally disclosed compounds SrTiO3, BaTiO3, and SrxBai-xTiO3.The amended language encompasses varying stoichiometries, mixed oxides, doped materials and additional elements not originally described in the disclosure.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 9, the claim recites, “wherein the first, second and third electrode plates are included in a dielectric material” which is indefinite since claim 1 already recites a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer associated with the electrode plates and the capacitor dielectric layers. Therefore, it is unclear whether the dielectric material recited in claim 4 refers to the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer, the first and second capacitor dielectric layers or an additional dielectric material. The metes and bounds of claim 4 are not clear.
Claim 5 depends upon claim 4 and does not rectify the problem therefore, it is also rejected.
Claim 10 depends upon claim 9 and does not rectify the problem therefore, it is also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ando et al. (US 9,761,655 B1; hereafter Ando) in view of Childs et al. (US 2013/0270675 A1; hereafter Childs), Bang (US 2009/0096062 A1) and Chang et al. (US 2012/0319239 A1; hereafter Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Ando teaches a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor (see e.g., stacked planar capacitor structure 200, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), comprising:
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Ando teaches a similar structure as the instant application, only difference being the electrode plates and capacitor dielectrics being arranged in a reverse order as shown in Figure 14.
Moving from top to bottom in Figure 14, the bottom electrode 116 could be considered as the first electrode plate, high-k dielectric layer 114 as the first capacitor dielectric, top electrode 110 as the second electrode plate, high-k dielectric 108 as the second capacitor dielectric and the bottom electrode 104 as the third electrode plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
1023
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 14 (Ando)
a first electrode plate, the first electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and a second end (see e.g., bottom electrode 116 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);
a first capacitor dielectric on the first electrode plate, the first capacitor dielectric comprising a high-k dielectric material, wherein the first capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 114 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);, the first end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the first electrode plate, and the second end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the first electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the bottom electrode 116, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the bottom electrode 116)
a first dielectric layer over the first electrode plate and the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., first dielectric, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, over the bottom electrode 116 and the high-k dielectric 114 layer, modified Figure 14), the first dielectric layer having an uppermost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, is above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114, modified Figure 14);
a second electrode plate on the first capacitor dielectric, the second electrode plate having a first portion over and parallel with the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., top electrode 110, having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, having a portion on top and parallel with the bottom electrode 116, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second electrode has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric ( see e.g., top electrode 110 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114 as shown in the modified Figure 14, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14),
a second capacitor dielectric on the second electrode plate, the second capacitor dielectric comprising the high-k dielectric material (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 on the top electrode 110, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., the high-k dielectric layer 108 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), the first end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the second electrode plate, and the and the second end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the second electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the top electrode 110, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the top electrode 110), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second electrode plate (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the top electrode 110 as shown in the modified Figure 14);
a second dielectric layer over the second electrode plate and the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, over the top electrode 110 and the high-k dielectric layer 108, modified Figure 14), the second dielectric layer on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, modified Figure 14), and the second dielectric layer distinct from the first dielectric layer (the first and second dielectric layers are distinct, modified Figure 14);
a third electrode plate on the second capacitor dielectric, the third electrode plate having a lateral width (see e.g., bottom electrode 104, with a lateral width, on the high-k dielectric layer 108 having a portion over and parallel with the top electrode 110, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the third electrode plate has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the bottom electrode 104 has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 108)
Ando does not explicitly teach
“dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material,”
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches
dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material (see e.g., a capacitor dielectric material maybe a barium strontium titanate (BST) material; Examiner’s interpretation: BST is an example of perovskite dielectric material, Para [0021]).
Applicant has not shown any unexpected results with perovskite or a non-perovskite dielectric material. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.).
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In reFout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Child’s teachings of dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material in the device of Ando for the purpose of using a material that has high-k dielectric value, which allows for increasing the capacitance within a smaller physical space, which allows for increasing device density.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer”;
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
In a similar field of endeavor Bang teaches
PNG
media_image2.png
532
1090
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 8, Bang
wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 8 second portion of the second electrode 26b is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Bang’s teachings of wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer in the device of Ando is a mere rearrangement of parts to achieve the claimed invention.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate”.
A change in size or proportion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.
In a similar field of endeavor Chang teaches
the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate (see e.g., the third capacitor plate has a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second capacitor plate, Para [0048], Figures 3D and 3H); and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate (see e.g., conductive structure 343b over and in contact with the third capacitor plate, Para [0052], Figure 3H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Chang’s teachings of the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate in the device of Ando as a mere change in size as per device requirements and to provide an electrical connection via the interconnect to the top electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein the perovskite high-k dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of a material comprising strontium, titanium and oxygen, a material comprising barium, titanium and oxygen, and a material comprising strontium, barium, titanium and oxygen”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material (see e.g., a capacitor dielectric material maybe a barium strontium titanate SrxBai-xTiO3 material, Para [0021]).
Applicant has not shown any unexpected results with perovskite or a non-perovskite dielectric material. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.).
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In reFout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Child’s teachings of dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material in the device of Ando for the purpose of using a material that has high-k dielectric value, which allows for increasing the capacitance within a smaller physical space, which allows for increasing device density.
Regarding claim 3, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Ando further teaches
wherein the second capacitor dielectric extends laterally beyond the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., the high-k dielectric layer 108 extends laterally beyond the first high-k dielectric layer 114, Figure 14).
Regarding claim 4, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Ando further teaches
wherein the first, second and third electrode plates are included in a dielectric material (see e.g., the bottom electrode 116, the top electrode 110 and the bottom electrode 104 are included in a dielectric layer 102 layer and dielectric layer 120 which is similar or same as dielectric layer 102, Column 7, Lines 49-53, Figure 14).
Regarding claim 5, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as mentioned above. Ando further teaches
wherein the dielectric material is included in a back end of line (BEOL) metallization structure, the BEOL metallization structure above a plurality of integrated circuit devices (see e.g., The dielectric layer 102 may be any interlevel or intralevel dielectrics utilized at the back end of line (BEOL). As used herein, BEOL generally begins when the first layer of metal is deposited on the wafer. As such, BEOL typically includes contacts, insulating layers, metal levels, and bonding sites for chip-to-package connections. The dielectric layer 120 may be any one of the interlevel or intralevel dielectrics typically utilized at the back end of line (BEOL), Column 4, Lines 30-40, Column 7, Lines 49-53).
Regarding claim 6, Ando teaches a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor (see e.g., stacked planar capacitor structure 200, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), comprising:
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Ando teaches a similar structure as the instant application, only difference being the electrode plates and capacitor dielectrics being arranged in a reverse order as shown in Figure 14.
Moving from top to bottom in Figure 14, the bottom electrode 116 could be considered as the first electrode plate, high-k dielectric layer 114 as the first capacitor dielectric, top electrode 110 as the second electrode plate, high-k dielectric 108 as the second capacitor dielectric and the bottom electrode 104 as the third electrode plate.
a first electrode plate, the first electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and a second end (see e.g., bottom electrode 116 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);
a first capacitor dielectric on the first electrode plate, the first capacitor dielectric comprising a high-k dielectric material, wherein the first capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 114 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);, the first end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the first electrode plate, and the second end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the first electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the bottom electrode 116, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the bottom electrode 116)
a second electrode plate on the first capacitor dielectric, the second electrode plate having a first portion over and parallel with the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., top electrode 110, having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, having a portion on top and parallel with the bottom electrode 116, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second electrode has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric ( see e.g., top electrode 110 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114 as shown in the modified Figure 14, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), and
a first dielectric layer over the first electrode plate and the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., first dielectric, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, over the bottom electrode 116 and the high-k dielectric 114 layer, modified Figure 14), the first dielectric layer having an uppermost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, is above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114, modified Figure 14);
a second capacitor dielectric on the second electrode plate, the second capacitor dielectric comprising a non-perovskite high-k dielectric material (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 on the top electrode 110. Materials suitable for the high-k dielectric layer include, but are not limited to, oxide-nitride-oxide, SiO.sub.2, Ta.sub.2O.sub.5, Si.sub.3N.sub.4, SiON, ZrO.sub.2, HfO.sub.2, HfSiO.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, and any combination of two or more of the foregoing materials, Column 7, Lines 16-23, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., the high-k dielectric layer 108 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), the first end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the second electrode plate, and the and the second end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the second electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the top electrode 110, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the top electrode 110), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second electrode plate (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the top electrode 110 as shown in the modified Figure 14);
a second dielectric layer over the second electrode plate and the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, over the top electrode 110 and the high-k dielectric layer 108, modified Figure 14), the second dielectric layer on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, modified Figure 14), and the second dielectric layer distinct from the first dielectric layer (the first and second dielectric layers are distinct, modified Figure 14);
a third electrode plate on the second capacitor dielectric, the third electrode plate having a lateral width (see e.g., bottom electrode 104, with a lateral width, on the high-k dielectric layer 108 having a portion over and parallel with the top electrode 110, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the third electrode plate has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the bottom electrode 104 has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 108)
Ando does not explicitly teach
“dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material”;
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches
dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material (see e.g., a capacitor dielectric maybe barium strontium titanate, Paras [0020], [0021]; Examiner’s interpretation: BST is an example of perovskite dielectric material, Para [0021]);
Applicant has not shown any unexpected results with perovskite or a non-perovskite dielectric material. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.). An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In reFout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Child’s teachings of dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material in the device of Ando for the purpose of using a material that has high-k dielectric value, which allows for increasing the capacitance within a smaller physical space, which allows for increasing device density.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer”;
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
In a similar field of endeavor Bang teaches
wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 8 second portion of the second electrode 26b is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Bang’s teachings of wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer in the device of Ando is a mere rearrangement of parts to achieve the claimed invention.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate”.
A change in size or proportion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.
In a similar field of endeavor Chang teaches
the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate (see e.g., the third capacitor plate has a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second capacitor plate, Para [0048], Figures 3D and 3H); and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate (see e.g., conductive structure 343b over and in contact with the third capacitor plate, Para [0052], Figure 3H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Chang’s teachings of the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate in the device of Ando as a mere change in size as per device requirements and to provide an electrical connection via the interconnect to the top electrode.
Regarding claim 7, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 6 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein the perovskite high-k dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of a material comprising strontium, titanium and oxygen, a material comprising barium, titanium and oxygen, and a material comprising strontium, barium, titanium and oxygen”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches
wherein the perovskite high-k dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of a material comprising strontium, titanium and oxygen, a material comprising barium, titanium and oxygen, and a material comprising strontium, barium, titanium and oxygen (see e.g., a capacitor dielectric maybe barium strontium titanate SrxBai-xTiO3, Paras [0020], [0021]);
Applicant has not shown any unexpected results with perovskite or a non-perovskite dielectric material. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.).An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In reFout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Child’s teachings of dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material in the device of Ando for the purpose of using a material that has high-k dielectric value, which allows for increasing the capacitance within a smaller physical space, which allows for increasing device density.
Regarding claim 8, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 6 as mentioned above. Ando further teaches
wherein the non-perovskite high-k dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of hafnium oxide, hafnium zirconium oxide, and hafnium aluminum oxide (see e.g., Materials suitable for the first high-k dielectric layer 108 include, but are not limited to, oxide-nitride-oxide, SiO.sub.2, Ta.sub.2O.sub.5, Si.sub.3N.sub.4, SiON, ZrO.sub.2, ZrAlO, ZrSiO, HfAlO, HfO.sub.2, HfSiO.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, and any combination of two or more of the foregoing materials, Column 6, Lines 14-20, Figure 14).
Regarding claim 9, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 6 as mentioned above. Ando further teaches
wherein the first, second and third electrode plates are included in a dielectric material (see e.g., the bottom electrode 116, the top electrode 110 and the bottom electrode 104 are included in a dielectric layer 102 layer and dielectric layer 120 which is similar or same as dielectric layer 102, Column 7, Lines 49-53, Figure 14).
Regarding claim 10, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 19 as mentioned above. Ando further teaches
wherein the dielectric material is included in a back end of line (BEOL) metallization structure, the BEOL metallization structure above a plurality of integrated circuit devices (see e.g., The dielectric layer 102 may be any interlevel or intralevel dielectrics utilized at the back end of line (BEOL). As used herein, BEOL generally begins when the first layer of metal is deposited on the wafer. As such, BEOL typically includes contacts, insulating layers, metal levels, and bonding sites for chip-to-package connections. The dielectric layer 120 may be any one of the interlevel or intralevel dielectrics typically utilized at the back end of line (BEOL), Column 4, Lines 30-40, Column 7, Lines 49-53).
Regarding claim 11, Ando teaches a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor (see e.g., stacked planar capacitor structure 200, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), comprising:
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Ando teaches a similar structure as the instant application, only difference being the electrode plates and capacitor dielectrics being arranged in a reverse order as shown in Figure 14.
Moving from top to bottom in Figure 14, the bottom electrode 116 could be considered as the first electrode plate, high-k dielectric layer 114 as the first capacitor dielectric, top electrode 110 as the second electrode plate, high-k dielectric 108 as the second capacitor dielectric and the bottom electrode 104 as the third electrode plate.
a first electrode plate, the first electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and second end (see e.g., bottom electrode 116 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);
a first capacitor dielectric on the first electrode plate, the first capacitor dielectric comprising a high-k dielectric material, wherein the first capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 114 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);, the first end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the first electrode plate, and the second end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the first electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the bottom electrode 116, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the bottom electrode 116)
a first dielectric layer over the first electrode plate and the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., first dielectric, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, over the bottom electrode 116 and the high-k dielectric 114 layer, modified Figure 14), the first dielectric layer having an uppermost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, is above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114, modified Figure 14);
a second electrode plate on the first capacitor dielectric, the second electrode plate having a first portion over and parallel with the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., top electrode 110, having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, having a portion on top and parallel with the bottom electrode 116, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second electrode has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric ( see e.g., top electrode 110 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114 as shown in the modified Figure 14, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14); and
a second capacitor dielectric on the second electrode plate, the second capacitor dielectric comprising the high-k dielectric material (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 on the top electrode 110, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., the high-k dielectric layer 108 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), the first end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the second electrode plate, and the and the second end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the second electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the top electrode 110, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the top electrode 110), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second electrode plate (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the top electrode 110 as shown in the modified Figure 14);
a second dielectric layer over the second electrode plate and the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, over the top electrode 110 and the high-k dielectric layer 108, modified Figure 14), the second dielectric layer on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, modified Figure 14), and the second dielectric layer distinct from the first dielectric layer (the first and second dielectric layers are distinct, modified Figure 14);
a third electrode plate on the second capacitor dielectric, the third electrode plate having a lateral width (see e.g., bottom electrode 104, with a lateral width, on the high-k dielectric layer 108 having a portion over and parallel with the top electrode 110, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the third electrode plate has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the bottom electrode 104 has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 108)
Ando does not explicitly teach
“a board; and
a component coupled to the board, the component including a metal-insulator- metal (MIM) capacitor”
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches
a board; and
a component coupled to the board, the component including a metal-insulator- metal (MIM) capacitor (see e.g., electronic system 1000, a computing device comprising MIM capacitor. A foundation substrate 1090 may be part of the computing system 1000. The foundation substrate 1090 is a motherboard that supports an apparatus that includes an on-chip capacitor i.e., the MIM capacitor, Para [0111], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of a computing device comprising a MIM capacitor coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material,”
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material (see e.g., a capacitor dielectric material maybe a barium strontium titanate (BST) material; Examiner’s interpretation: BST is an example of perovskite dielectric material, Para [0021]).
Applicant has not shown any unexpected results with perovskite or a non-perovskite dielectric material. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.).
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In reFout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Child’s teachings of dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material in the device of Ando for the purpose of using a material that has high-k dielectric value, which allows for increasing the capacitance within a smaller physical space, which allows for increasing device density.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer”;
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
In a similar field of endeavor Bang teaches
wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 8 second portion of the second electrode 26b is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Bang’s teachings of wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer in the device of Ando is a mere rearrangement of parts to achieve the claimed invention.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate”.
A change in size or proportion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.
In a similar field of endeavor Chang teaches
the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate (see e.g., the third capacitor plate has a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second capacitor plate, Para [0048], Figures 3D and 3H); and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate (see e.g., conductive structure 343b over and in contact with the third capacitor plate, Para [0052], Figure 3H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Chang’s teachings of the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate in the device of Ando as a mere change in size as per device requirements and to provide an electrical connection via the interconnect to the top electrode.
Regarding claim 12, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“further comprising: a memory coupled to the board”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches a memory coupled to the board (see e.g., the processor 1010 includes on-die memory 1016. The dual integrated circuit 1011 includes on-die memory 1017. The electronic system includes an external memory 1040, Paras [0105] - [0109], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of a memory coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Regarding claim 13, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“further comprising: a communication chip coupled to the board”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches a communication chip coupled to the board (see e.g., the integrated circuit 1010 includes a communication circuit 1014. The dual integrated circuit 1011 includes a dual communications circuit 1015, Paras [0105] - [0106], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of a communication chip coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Regarding claim 14, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“further comprising: a camera coupled to the board”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches a camera coupled to the board (see e.g., input device 1070 includes a camera, Para [0110], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of a camera coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Regarding claim 15, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein the component is a packaged integrated circuit die”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches wherein the component is a packaged integrated circuit die (see e.g., the computer system 1000 includes an on-chip capacitor, Para [0103], Figures 9 and 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of on-chip capacitor in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Regarding claim 16, Ando teaches a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor (see e.g., stacked planar capacitor structure 200, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), comprising:
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Ando teaches a similar structure as the instant application, only difference being the electrode plates and capacitor dielectrics being arranged in a reverse order as shown in Figure 14.
Moving from top to bottom in Figure 14, the bottom electrode 116 could be considered as the first electrode plate, high-k dielectric layer 114 as the first capacitor dielectric, top electrode 110 as the second electrode plate, high-k dielectric 108 as the second capacitor dielectric and the bottom electrode 104 as the third electrode plate.
a first electrode plate, the first electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and a second end (see e.g., bottom electrode 116 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);
a first capacitor dielectric on the first electrode plate, the first capacitor dielectric comprising a high-k dielectric material, wherein the first capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 114 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14);, the first end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the first electrode plate, and the second end of the capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the first electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the bottom electrode 116, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 114 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the bottom electrode 116)
a first dielectric layer over the first electrode plate and the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., first dielectric, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, over the bottom electrode 116 and the high-k dielectric 114 layer, modified Figure 14), the first dielectric layer having an uppermost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric (see e.g., the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, is above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114, modified Figure 14);
a second electrode plate on the first capacitor dielectric, the second electrode plate having a first portion over and parallel with the first electrode plate, and the second electrode plate having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., top electrode 110, having a lateral width between a first end and a second end, having a portion on top and parallel with the bottom electrode 116, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second electrode has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the first capacitor dielectric ( see e.g., top electrode 110 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 114 as shown in the modified Figure 14, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14); and
a second capacitor dielectric on the second electrode plate, the second capacitor dielectric comprising a non-perovskite high-k dielectric material (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 on the top electrode 110. Materials suitable for the high-k dielectric layer include, but are not limited to, oxide-nitride-oxide, SiO.sub.2, Ta.sub.2O.sub.5, Si.sub.3N.sub.4, SiON, ZrO.sub.2, HfO.sub.2, HfSiO.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, and any combination of two or more of the foregoing materials, Column 7, Lines 16-23, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, (see e.g., the high-k dielectric layer 108 has a lateral width between a first end and a second end, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), the first end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the first end of the second electrode plate, and the and the second end of the second capacitor dielectric in vertical alignment with the second end of the second electrode plate (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the first end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the first end of the top electrode 110, and the second end of the high-k dielectric layer 108 is in vertical alignment with the second end of the top electrode 110), wherein the second capacitor dielectric has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second electrode plate (see e.g., high-k dielectric layer 108 has a bottommost surface above the uppermost surface of the top electrode 110 as shown in the modified Figure 14);
a second dielectric layer over the second electrode plate and the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, over the top electrode 110 and the high-k dielectric layer 108, modified Figure 14), the second dielectric layer on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., second dielectric layer, including the first isolation region 106, is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer, including the ILD 120 and the second isolation region 112, modified Figure 14), and the second dielectric layer distinct from the first dielectric layer (the first and second dielectric layers are distinct, modified Figure 14);
a third electrode plate on the second capacitor dielectric, the third electrode plate having a lateral width (see e.g., bottom electrode 104, with a lateral width, on the high-k dielectric layer 108 having a portion over and parallel with the top electrode 110, Column 8, Lines 52-67, Figure 14), wherein the third electrode plate has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the second capacitor dielectric (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 14 the bottom electrode 104 has a bottommost surface above an uppermost surface of the high-k dielectric layer 108)
Ando does not explicitly teach
“a board; and
a component coupled to the board, the component including a metal-insulator- metal (MIM) capacitor”
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches
a board; and
a component coupled to the board, the component including a metal-insulator- metal (MIM) capacitor (see e.g., electronic system 1000, a computing device comprising MIM capacitor. A foundation substrate 1090 may be part of the computing system 1000. The foundation substrate 1090 is a motherboard that supports an apparatus that includes an on-chip capacitor i.e., the MIM capacitor, Para [0111], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of a computing device comprising a MIM capacitor coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material”;
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches
comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material (see e.g., a capacitor dielectric maybe barium strontium titanate, Paras [0020], [0021]; Examiner’s interpretation: BST is an example of perovskite dielectric material, Para [0021]);
Applicant has not shown any unexpected results with perovskite or a non-perovskite dielectric material. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In reRuff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smithv.Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (The mere fact that phthalocyanine and selenium function as equivalent photoconductors in the claimed environment was not sufficient to establish that one would have been obvious over the other. However, there was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. “This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor.” 209 USPQ at 759.).
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In reFout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Child’s teachings of dielectric comprising a perovskite high-k dielectric material in the device of Ando for the purpose of using a material that has high-k dielectric value, which allows for increasing the capacitance within a smaller physical space, which allows for increasing device density.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer”;
A rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); See also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
In a similar field of endeavor Bang teaches
wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer (see e.g., as shown in modified Figure 8 second portion of the second electrode 26b is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Bang’s teachings of wherein a second portion of the second electrode plate is on the uppermost surface of the first dielectric layer in the device of Ando is a mere rearrangement of parts to achieve the claimed invention.
Ando does not explicitly teach
“the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate”.
A change in size or proportion is held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04.
In a similar field of endeavor Chang teaches
the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate (see e.g., the third capacitor plate has a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second capacitor plate, Para [0048], Figures 3D and 3H); and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate (see e.g., conductive structure 343b over and in contact with the third capacitor plate, Para [0052], Figure 3H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Chang’s teachings of the third electrode plate having a lateral width entirely within the lateral width of the second electrode plate; and an interconnect over and in contact with the third electrode plate in the device of Ando as a mere change in size as per device requirements and to provide an electrical connection via the interconnect to the top electrode.
Regarding claim 17, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 16 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“further comprising: a memory coupled to the board”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches a memory coupled to the board (see e.g., the processor 1010 includes on-die memory 1016. The dual integrated circuit 1011 includes on-die memory 1017. The electronic system includes an external memory 1040, Paras [0105]-[0109], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Child’s teachings of a memory coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Regarding claim 18, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 16 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“further comprising: a communication chip coupled to the board”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches a communication chip coupled to the board (see e.g., the integrated circuit 1010 includes a communication circuit 1014. The dual integrated circuit 1011 includes a dual communications circuit 1015, Paras [0105] - [0106], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of a communication chip coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Regarding claim 19, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 16 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“further comprising: a camera coupled to the board”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches a camera coupled to the board (see e.g., input device 1070 includes a camera, Para [0110], Figure 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of a camera coupled to a board in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Regarding claim 20, Ando, as modified by Childs, Bang and Chang, teaches the limitations of claim 16 as mentioned above. Ando does not explicitly teach
“wherein the component is a packaged integrated circuit die”.
In a similar field of endeavor Childs teaches wherein the component is a packaged integrated circuit die (see e.g., the computer system 1000 includes an on-chip capacitor, Para [0103], Figures 9 and 10).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively field to implement Childs’ teachings of an on-chip capacitor in the device of Ando so that it can serve to form an electronic device such as PC, DVD player or a mobile device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using
a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to
registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more
information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about
filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at
866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights