ASM IP HOLDING B.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2020004918 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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.
15/581,726 04/28/2017 Elina Färm ASMMC.130AUS 4248
68852 7590 02/02/2021
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP
ASM IP HOLDING B.V.
2040 Main Street
14th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
EXAMINER
CHOUDHRY, MOHAMMAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2816
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 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):
asm.pair@anaqua.com
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ELINA FÄRM, HIDEMI SUEMORI, RAIJA MATERO,
ANTTI NISKANEN, SUVI P. HAUKKA, and EVA TOIS
____________

Appeal 2020-004918
Application 15/581,726
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1–23, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 An oral hearing was held for this appeal on January 11, 2021. A transcript
of the oral hearing will be entered into the record in due course.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ASM IP
Holding B.V. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004918
Application 15/581,726
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the claimed subject matter relates to a
selective deposition process in the field of semiconductor device
manufacturing and, “more particularly, to selective deposition of a material
on a first surface of a substrate relative to a second organic surface.” Spec.
¶¶ 2–3. Claim 1 illustrates the invention and reads as follows:
1. A vapor deposition process for selectively
depositing a material on a first surface of a substrate relative to
a second organic surface, the method comprising:
contacting the substrate with a first vapor phase
hydrophobic reactant; and
contacting the substrate with a second vapor phase
reactant,
wherein the material is deposited selectively on the first
surface relative to the second organic surface.
See Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Besser US 2002/0027261 Al Mar. 7, 2002
Bice US 2003/0176559 Al Sept. 18, 2003
George US 2005/0012975 Al Jan. 20, 2005
Frey US 2006/0121271 Al June 8, 2006
Cissell US 2013/0122722 Al May 16, 2013
Haukka US 2013/0196502 Al Aug. 1, 2013
Monroe US 2015/0083415 Al Mar. 26, 2015
Wang US 2017/0107413 Al Apr. 20, 2017
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Besser and George. Final
Act. 2–5.
Appeal 2020-004918
Application 15/581,726
3
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Besser, George, and Wang. Final Act. 5–6.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Besser, George, and Monroe. Final Act. 6.
Claims 9, 11, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Besser, George, and Frey. Final Act. 6–7.
Claims 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Besser, George, and Haukka. Final Act. 7–8.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Besser, George, and Cissell. Final Act. 8.
Claims 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Besser, George, and Bice. Final Act. 8–9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we concur with
Appellant’s arguments concerning unpatentability under § 103. We add the
following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Besser as disclosing the
recited “vapor deposition process for selectively depositing a material on a
first surface of a substrate relative to a second organic surface.” Final
Act. 2–3 (citing Besser Fig. 2, ¶¶ 11, 56, 57). The Examiner specifically
states:
Besser discloses a vapor deposition process for selectively
depositing a material on a first surface (Fig. 2; surface 6) of a
substrate (Para 0057; Fig. 2; at least one thin layer 7 comprising
at least one passivant element (e.g., Ni) for the metal 5 (e.g.,
unalloyed Cu) of the in-laid metal feature(s) of the metallization
pattern is selectively deposited on the exposed, upper surface 6
Appeal 2020-004918
Application 15/581,726
4
thereof) relative to a second organic surface (Para 0056; Fig. 2;
surface 4 of a layer 3 wherein layer 3 can be organic polymeric
material), the method comprising: wherein the material is
deposited selectively on the first surface (Para 0057; surface 6)
relative to the second organic surface (Para 0011 and 0056-
0057; Fig. 2; metal 5 is selectively deposited on the exposed,
upper surface 6 relative to surface 4. According to BRI
“relative” can be interpreted as metal 5 is deposited on surface
6 but not on surface 4 (organic surface)).
Id.
The Examiner further relies on George as disclosing “contacting the
substrate with a first vapor phase hydrophobic reactant; and contacting the
substrate with a second vapor phase reactant.” Final Act. 3 (citing George
¶¶ 112, 114, 160). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to use George’s disclosure in Besser’s
process to provide “a surface that is less favorable to adsorption of water.”
Id.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Besser with George teaches or suggests the claimed
invention because Besser is concerned with passivating the top surface of a
copper metal feature and George relates to a hydrophobic coating of a
micro-mechanical device. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant asserts that
[t]he cited paragraphs of George do not teach a method of
selectively depositing any material by contacting a substrate
with a hydrophobic reactant and a second reactant, much less a
passivation layer that could not only function in the context of
Besser but serve the particular functions that Besser requires.
Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant also argues that there is no reason to combine the references
because Besser is not concerned with water exposure[,] which is addressed
in George by depositing a hydrophobic layer on a micro-mechanical device
Appeal 2020-004918
Application 15/581,726
5
that allows using the device in a humid environment. Appeal Br. 9.
According to Appellant, “[t]here is no indication of how the deposition
process of George could be carried out successfully in the context of Besser,
and no teaching of how selective deposition would be achieved.” Appeal
Br. 10.
The Examiner responds by explaining that, in view of the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim term “relative,” Besser discloses
selective deposition of a passivant element on surface 6 of the metal layer,
but not on surface 4 of the dielectric layer, which may be an organic
material. Ans. 4 (citing Besser Fig. 2, ¶¶ 56, 57). With respect to George’s
teachings, the Examiner further points to Figure 18 and paragraph 18 and
explains “George discloses contacting the substrate with a first vapor phase
hydrophobic reactant (¶; 0112 and 0114); and contacting substrate with a
second vapor phase reactant (¶0160).” Ans. 5. Next, the Examiner clarifies
the reason for combining the references as “one of an ordinary [skill
understood] that techniques and material applied to prevent moisture issues
during lithographic process can be used to apply on devices to encapsulate
and vice versa.” Ans. 6; see also Ans. 7.
We agree with Appellant’s contention that the references’ teachings
concern different aspects of device manufacturing. The cited portions of
Besser disclose a process for depositing a passivating metallic layer over
copper interconnect areas which, although requires selective deposition,
does not involve using a vapor hydrophobic reactant for the selective
deposition on a first surface relative to an organic surface, as claimed. The
only reference made in Besser to “an organic” material is in the context of
different types of materials suitable for inter-dielectric layer 3, as shown in
Figure 2. See Besser ¶ 56.
Appeal 2020-004918
Application 15/581,726
6
George, on the other hand, discloses using a hydrophobic material as
the passivating layer over a micro-mechanical device that is used in a humid
environment, but not as a tool for selective deposition of any material. See
George Fig. 16, ¶¶ 110–114.
We therefore agree with Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has
not sufficiently explained how combining the passivating layer of George
with the process disclosed by Besser for deposition a metal layer over
copper interconnects would teach or suggest the recited claim features. In
fact, the Examiner has not identified any teachings in Besser or George to
support the assertion that providing “a surface that is less favorable to
adsorption of water” would justify the combination or even result in the
recited process for selectively depositing a material. See Ans. 5–7. That is,
even if Besser is modified with George to use a hydrophobic passivating
layer over the device, the Examiner has not explained how the modification
would relate to deposition a material selectively over a first surface relative
to a second organic surface. See also Reply Br. 6–9.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s
proposed combination does not teach or suggest the recited features of
claim 1. The Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other applied
prior art references to cure the above-identified deficiency. Therefore,
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s position
with respect to the rejections of independent claim 1, other independent
claim which recites similar limitations (see claim 15), as well as the
remaining claims dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims
App.).

Appeal 2020-004918
Application 15/581,726
7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13,
15, 20, 21
103 Besser, George 1, 2, 6, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13,
15, 20, 21
3 103 Besser, George,
Wang
3
4, 5 103 Besser, George,
Monroe
4, 5
9, 11, 22 103 Besser, George, Frey 9, 11, 22
14, 23 103 Besser, George,
Haukka
14, 23
16 103 Besser, George,
Cissell
16
17–19 103 Besser, George, Bice 17–19
Overall Outcome 1–23

REVERSED