Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2021

2020005118 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2021)

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.
15/385,202 12/20/2016 Jun Qian 015346USAC01;05542-718002 2317
26185 7590 10/20/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (APPLIED MATERIALS)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
CRANDALL, JOEL DILLON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2021 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):
Applied_Materials.Pair@anaqua.com
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JUN QIAN and HARRY Q. LEE
____________

Appeal 2020-005118
Application 15/385,202
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and JILL D. HILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CAPP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 16–26, 29 and 30 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over David (US 2007/0224915 A1, pub. Sept. 27, 2007) and
Lehman (US 2003/0180973 A1, pub. Sept. 25, 2003), and of claims 27
and 28 over David, Lehman, and Mavliev (US 2005/0173259 A1, pub.
Aug. 11, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the
applicant and real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-005118
Application 15/385,202
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to chemical mechanical polishing of
integrated circuit substrates. Spec. 1. Claim 16, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
16. A method of controlling polishing of a substrate,
comprising:
polishing a substrate;
monitoring a plurality of zones of a substrate during
polishing of the substrate with an in-situ spectrographic
monitoring system, the monitoring with the in-situ
spectrographic monitoring system collecting a plurality of
spectra from the substrate being polished;
monitoring the substrate during polishing with an endpoint
detection system other than the in-situ spectrographic
monitoring system, the monitoring of the substrate with the
endpoint detection system including generating measurements
of the substrate being polished from the endpoint detection
system;
determining a projected endpoint time from the plurality of
spectra collected by the in-situ spectrographic monitoring
system and without using the measurements from the endpoint
detection system;
adjusting a polishing parameter for at least one zone on the
substrate based on data from the in-situ spectrographic
monitoring system and without using the measurements from
the endpoint detection system to adjust the polishing rate of the
at least one zone such that the at least one zone has closer to a
target thickness at the projected endpoint time than without
such adjustment;
detecting a polishing endpoint with the endpoint detection
system and without using the data from the in-situ
spectrographic monitoring system; and
halting polishing when the endpoint detection system
detects the polishing endpoint.
Appeal 2020-005118
Application 15/385,202
3
OPINION
Unpatentability of Claims 16–26, 29, and 30
over David and Lehman
Appellant argues claims 16–26, 29, and 30 as a group. Appeal Br. 6.
Claim 16 is representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that David discloses the invention substantially
as claimed except for monitoring the substrate during polishing with an
endpoint detection system other than a spectrographic system, for which the
Examiner relies on Lehman. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to incorporate an eddy current device, as taught by
Lehman, into the device of David. Id. at 3–4. According to the Examiner, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have done this to determine
thickness over a broad range. Id. at 4.
Appellant first argues that the applied art fails to disclose determining
a projected endpoint time by a spectrographic monitoring system. Appeal
Br. 6–10. The Examiner effectively refutes this argument in the Answer,
prompting Appellant to explicitly abandon its position. Ans. 13–18, Reply
Br. 1. We resolve this issue in favor of the Examiner under the doctrine of
waiver. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (waiver is “an
intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right”).
Appellant next argues that David and Lehman fail to both: (1) adjust a
parameter using only the spectrographic monitoring system; and (2) detect
an endpoint using only a separate an independent endpoint detection system.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also argues that Lehman “explicitly” teaches away
from the claimed subject matter. Id. at 11 (citing Lehman ¶ 142). With
respect to Appellant’s teaching away argument, it is well settled that “mere
Appeal 2020-005118
Application 15/385,202
4
disclosure of alternative designs does not teach away.” In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Rather, teaching away requires “clear
discouragement” from implementing a technical feature. In re Ethicon,
Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We have reviewed the passage
from which Appellant alleges that Lehman teaches away (Lehman ¶ 142)
and do not see that it discourages a practitioner from implementing
Appellant’s claimed invention.
In response to Appellant’s argument that the prior art does not
disclose using separate and independent systems to: (1) adjust a parameter;
and (2) determine an endpoint, the Examiner finds that Lehman teaches the
use of: (1) an eddy current device; and (2) an optical device. Ans. 19. The
Examiner directs our attention to paragraph 49 of Lehman as teaching the
use of output signals of an eddy current device to estimate an endpoint for a
polishing process. Id. at 20. The Examiner further directs our attention to
paragraph 139 of Lehman as teaching that a polishing characteristic or an
endpoint of polishing may be determined from output signals of the eddy
current device and/or the optical device. Id.
Appellant submits a Reply Brief but focuses its efforts on
distinguishing between measuring relatively thin verses relatively thick
substrates. See generally Reply Br. Appellant makes no attempt to
distinguish the claimed invention from the teachings of paragraphs 49
and 139 of Lehman relied on by the Examiner. Id.
David is directed to a method of determining a polishing endpoint
using spectrographic data. David, Abstract, ¶ 103. At steps 705 and 707 of
Figure 7B, David’s system calculates a polishing rate (Step 705) and then
calculates an endpoint time (Step 707). Id. ¶¶ 78–79, Fig. 7B. Then, at
Appeal 2020-005118
Application 15/385,202
5
steps 709, 711, 713, and 715, David empirically uses spectra data to
calculate polishing time. Id. ¶¶ 81–83, Fig. 7B. Thus, the Examiner’s
finding that David discloses adjusting polishing rate based on data from a
spectrographic monitoring system and without using a measurement from
another endpoint detection system is supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Lehman is directed to a method for monitoring a measurement device
during polishing of semiconductor devices. Lehman, Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 16.
Lehman uses optical scanning measurement means as well as eddy current
measuring means. Id. ¶ 16. Lehman’s processor may be configured to
determine a polishing characteristic or a polishing endpoint from the output
signal of the eddy current device or the optical device. Id. ¶ 139. There is
no underlying factual support for Appellant’s contention that Lehman
necessarily and only combines data from its eddy current and its optical
devices and then uses such combined data to determine an endpoint. The
Examiner’s finding that Lehman determines an endpoint using the eddy
current device and without using data from an optical device is supported by
a preponderance of the evidence.
The Examiner’s findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence and the Examiner’s legal conclusion of unpatentability is well-
founded. In view thereof, we sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability
rejection of claims 16–26 and 29–30.
Unpatentability of Claims 27 and 28
over David, Lehman, and Mavliev
Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of claims 27
and 28 apart from arguments presented with respect to claim 16 which we
Appeal 2020-005118
Application 15/385,202
6
have previously considered. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 27 and 28. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (failure to separately
argue claims constitutes a waiver of arguments for separate patentability).
We sustain the Examiner’s unpatentability rejection of claims 27
and 26.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References Affirmed Rev’d
16-26, 29, 30 103 David, Lehman 16-26, 29, 30
27, 28 103 David, Lehman, Mavliev 27, 28
Overall
Outcome
16-30

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