Independent claims charted: 1, 9, 15 · dependent coverage asserted, not charted: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19
US6525403B2 supplies the generic fin FET (semiconductor projection protruding from substrate, gate over side/top surfaces with interposed gate insulating film, source/drain on both sides — claims 1, 7, 16) plus the concept of a surface region doped HIGHER than the fin body. US7348284B2 supplies the structural geometry of a layer wrapping the top surface and both sidewalls of the fin, nested inside the overlying gate dielectric (FIGS. 1E-1F: 'The dielectric layer 409 covers the top surface and two opposing sidewalls of the tri-gate fin 407 with the strained Si1-yGey layer 408'), and the down-to-base vertical extent used for claim 9's element 8 and claim 15's top-and-sidewall region. Combined, the references would render obvious a highly-doped region located along multiple outer edges of the channel, arranged vertically and laterally between channel and gate dielectric (claims 1, 14, 15). US7348284B2 also supplies dependent limitations: boron dopant species (claims 6/11 — p-type boron S/D) and doping ranges overlapping 1E18-1E20 cm-3 (claims 5/10 — 'concentration of the n-type dopants is in the approximate range of 2×10^16 cm−3 to 2×10^19 cm−3'), and gate-dielectric materials ZrO2/HfO2 (claim 19).
Motivation to combine
Both references are in the same field of endeavor (non-planar/tri-gate fin transistors). US6525403B2 teaches that a fin can carry a higher-doped surface region (claims 2/5: 'a third impurity region ... formed in the top surface of the semiconductor projection, the third impurity region being higher in doping level than the semiconductor layer of the semiconductor projection'). US7348284B2 teaches forming a thin conformal surface layer that 'covers the top surface and two opposing sidewalls of the tri-gate fin' with the gate dielectric then formed over that layer — the very inverted-'U' geometry recited in claims 2-3. A PHOSITA seeking uniform gate control around all three exposed fin faces would have applied US7348284B2's known conformal-wrapping technique to US6525403B2's higher-doped surface region so that the higher-doped region runs along the top AND sidewalls rather than the top alone, a predictable extension of a known surface-region technique to a device ready for improvement, with a reasonable expectation of success because conformal fin surface layers were routinely formed (epitaxy/implant) in this art.
⚠ Key weakness US7348284B2's fin-wrapping layer is a strained-SiGe CHANNEL layer, not a region doped higher than the bulk; the motivation to make that conformal wrapping region HIGHLY doped (and non-conductive, to increase effective oxide thickness) is the precise inventive insight of the target and may be supplied only by hindsight from the target's own disclosure. US6525403B2's higher-doped region is expressly confined to the top surface, so the 'multiple outer edges' arrangement is not disclosed by either reference standing alone.
Anticipated counterarguments
- 1.Neither reference discloses or suggests a surface region that is both wrapped around multiple fin edges AND doped higher than the bulk; US7348284B2's wrapping layer is a channel, and US6525403B2's higher-doped region is top-surface-only — the combination reconstructs the claim only with hindsight (MPEP § 2143.01).
- 2.US7348284B2's strained-SiGe layer functions as the mobility-enhancing channel; making it a 'non-conductive' highly doped region (claim 8) that carries little current would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and change its principle of operation.
- 3.The full specification and figures of US6525403B2 were not provided (mappings rest on the claims text only), so the 'protruding second fin' gate geometry and perpendicular orientation are UNVERIFIED.