15150961 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020)

Daniel Edelstein et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 2020

15150961 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/150,961 05/10/2016 DANIEL EDELSTEIN YOR920121040US2(14-40-01) 1384 98841 7590 05/04/2020 Otterstedt, Wallace & Kammer, LLP P.O. Box 381 Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381 EXAMINER SABUR, ALIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2812 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): CTOFFICE@OEKLAW.COM admin1@oeklaw.com docket@oeklaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DANIEL EDELSTEIN, ALFRED GRILL, SETH L. KNUPP, SON NGUYEN, TAKESHI NOGAMI, VAMSI K. PARUCHURI, HOSADURGA K. SHOBHA, and CHIH-CHAO YANG ____________________ Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–8, 15, and 21–47. Claims 9–14 and 16–20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), (b), and affirm the obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the same base reference of Yang et al. (US 2011/0049716 A1; published March 3, 2011) 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, International Business Machines Corporation the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 2 (hereinafter, “Yang”). Therefore, because we affirm each pending claim as to at least one rejection, we affirm. INVENTION Appellant’s invention, entitled “Ultrathin Multilayer Metal Alloy Liner for Nano Cu Interconnects” (Title), relates to “interconnection structures (interconnects) in microelectronic circuits including high speed microprocessors, application specific integrated circuits, memory storage devices, and related electronic structures” (Spec. ¶ 1). Appellant discloses a process for forming semiconductor interconnects “having enhanced electromigration (EM), stress migration, and time-dependent-dielectric- breakdown (TDDB) reliability” (Spec. ¶ 1). More specifically, Appellant discloses and claims forming a wire (see Figs. 1E, 2B, 150, 155) having a copper core (see Figs. 1E, 2B, 165A, 165B) surrounded by a metal alloy liner (see Figs. 1E, 2B, 155A, 155B, 160A, 160B) and metal cap (see Fig. 2B, 170A, 170B) to protect against EM and lower EM and/or TDDB (Spec. ¶¶ 8–10; claims 1, 21). The metal alloy liner is preferably “an ultra thin layer or layers of Mn alloys containing W and/or Co” (Spec. ¶ 12; see also Spec. ¶¶ 26, 35; claims 1, 21). Independent method claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below, with formatting and emphasis added to disputed portions of the claim. 1. A process comprising: (a) forming a wire embedded in a dielectric layer on a semiconductor substrate, said wire comprising a copper core comprising sidewalls and a bottom of said copper core, a top surface of said wire coplanar with a top surface of said dielectric layer; Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 3 (b) forming an electrically conductive liner on said top surface comprising an alloy of, or intercalated combinations of Mn with at least one of Co and/or W to minimize or eliminate EM and/or TDDB; (c) without exposing said substrate to oxygen, forming a dielectric liner over said alloy liner, any exposed portions of said liner, and said dielectric layer. Appeal Br. 15, Claims Appendix (formatting and emphasis added). EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 21, 24, and 28–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention. Final Act. 3–5. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 6, 21, 24, 26, 30–37, and 39– 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to provide adequate written description of the claimed invention so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed. Final Act. 5–6. (3) The Examiner rejected claims 1–8, 15, and 21–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang either alone (claims 1–8 and 21–28), or in combination with various other secondary and tertiary references (claims 4, 5, 15, 24, 25, 29–47). Final Act. 8–18. ISSUES Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 7–12; Reply Br. 2–5), three principal issues are before us on appeal: Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 4 (1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 21, 24, and 28–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), for being indefinite; (2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting, under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), (i) claims 1, 4, 21, 24, 30–37, and 39–47 as lacking written description support for the recitations of “intercalated combinations;” and (ii) claims 6 and 26 as lacking written description support for the recitation of “wherein (a), (b) and (c) are performed in a same chamber of a first deposition tool without removing said substrate from said chamber,” on the basis that the Specification as originally filed did not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed; and (3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–8, 15, and 22–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the base reference Yang because Yang fails to teach or suggest “an alloy of, or intercalated combinations of Mn with at least one of Co and/or W” as recited in representative claim 1 (see claim 1 (emphasis added)),2 and commensurately recited in remaining independent claim 21? 2 With regard to the obviousness rejections which are all based on Yang, Appellant makes only general arguments to all claims as a group, without arguing a specific claim (see generally Appeal Br. 9–12). Appellant’s arguments in this regard are drawn to the alloy composition recited in each of independent claims 1 and 21. Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative of claims 1–8 and 21–28 rejected over Yang alone. And, as Appellant has not presented any separate arguments as to the remaining rejections over Yang taken in combination with various other secondary and tertiary references, we will decide the outcome of claims 4, 5, 15, 24, 25, 29–47 on the same basis as claim 1. Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 5 ANALYSIS Issue (1): Indefiniteness With regard to claims 1, 4, 21, 24, and 30–47, the Examiner found the phrase “intercalated combinations” renders the claims indefinite (see Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner determined that, because paragraphs 26 and 35 of the Specification describe intercalating as a process where layers of materials are co-deposited, and whereas Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “intercalate” as a process that “requires inserting one thing between or among existing elements or layers” (Final Act. 3–4) (emphasis added), the term “intercalated” used in the claims (see e.g., claims 1 and 21) is indefinite and must be read out of the claims. Paragraph 26 of the Specification states, in pertinent part: The invention comprises, among other things: (1) various processes (CVD/ALD selective and non- selective) and Cu nano interconnect structures formation with an ultra thin nano layer line (from about 0.3 to about 1 nm thick) selective liner layer of alloys of Co/Mn, Co/Mn/W, W/Mn, W/Mn/Co and various alloy combination of Co/Mn/W layers as ultra thin alloy liners to improve nano device’s EM and TDDB. These could be deposited sequentially, or co-deposited by concurrent flow of multiple precursors, so as to produce a nano- layer Mn metal alloy liner film. Spec. ¶ 26 (emphases added). And, paragraph 35 states: We form these alloy metal liners by depositing precursors of Mn, with Co and/or W precursors sequentially, or co-depositing the precursors by concurrent flow of multiple precursors, so as to produce a nano-intercalated metal alloy liner film or series of Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 6 metal films, i.e., a series of metal layers that alloy with one another or a series of metal alloy layers. Spec. ¶ 35 (emphases added). Thus, the Specification is clear that intercalation can be performed one of two ways, either by (i) sequential deposition, or (ii) co-depositing, of metal films. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–4) that the Examiner erred in determining claims 1, 4, 21, 24, and 30– 47 to be indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the test for definiteness is whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Language in a claim is unclear if, when given its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is “ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention . . .” (In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Because the language of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is substantially the same as its predecessor, 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the same test for definiteness applies here. Breadth is not indefiniteness. Here, the intrinsic evidence of the Specification supports intercalation being performed by one of two different methods, and the term “intercalated Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 7 combinations” has sufficient meaning that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what this term means. To intercalate is broadly defined as meaning to interpose or insert one thing in another. See ttps://www.dictionary.com/browse/intercalate#, last visited April 25, 2020. Thus, sequentially depositing metal layers as described in the Specification (see Spec. ¶¶ 26, 35), meets this definition. In this light, we find the Examiner’s extrinsic evidence that intercalation cannot apply to metal alloys (see Final Act. 4 citing a IUPAC definition) too limiting. In view of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence before us, the term “intercalated combinations” is definite, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 4, 21, 24, and 30–47. With regard to claims 8 and 28, the Examiner found the phrases “about 3 to about 5 chambers” and “lower chamber” render the claims indefinite (see Final Act. 4; Ans. 4). With regard to claims 15, 29, and 38, the Examiner found the phrase “further downstream treatments” renders the claims indefinite (see Final Act. 4; Ans. 4–5). As to these claims rejected for indefiniteness, we also agree with Appellant’s arguments (see Appeal Br. 8–9) that these terms are definite. We conclude that “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d at 1576. As a result, we do not sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 8, 15, 28, 29, and 38. With regard to claim 21, the Examiner found the phrase “forming on said top surface of said wire and said sidewalls” renders the claim indefinite (see Final Act. 4–5). Appellant does not dispute this finding in the briefs (see generally Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 2–4) (addressing the rejections Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112). Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claim 21 because Appellant fails to respond. Issue 2: Written Description Based on our discussion above as to the term “intercalated combinations,” we also agree with Appellant’s conclusions that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 21, 24, and 30–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to provide an adequate written description of the invention recited in these claims. With regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 26 (which recite performing steps (a), (b), and (c) “in a same chamber of a first deposition tool”) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Final Act. 4–5), although Appellant urges the Board to reverse this rejection (Appeal Br. 9), Appellant’s arguments are conclusory, and such conclusory assertions without supporting explanation or analysis particularly pointing out errors in the Examiner’s finding or reasoning fall well short of persuasively rebutting the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s written description rejection of claims 6 and 26. Issue 3: Obviousness over Yang We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 9–12), the Examiner’s obviousness rejections (Final Act. 8–18), and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 5–6). Appellant’s arguments asserting the Examiner’s obviousness rejections Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 9 relying upon the base reference Yang is in error (Appeal Br. 10–12), are unpersuasive. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether or not the Examiner erred in finding the base reference Yang teaches or suggests “an alloy of, or intercalated combinations of Mn with at least one of Co and/or W” as recited in representative claim 1 (see claim 1 (emphasis added)). Most particularly, Appellant’s argument that Yang discloses using combinations of six different elements, and thus 285 different combinations thereof, and thus does not teach or suggest using manganese (Mn) with cobalt (Co) or Tungsten (W) (see Appeal Br. 10–12),3 has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of all the disputed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Yang sets forth the following regarding metal alloy combinations to be used for metal caps 170A and 170B shown in Figure 2B: In one example, metal caps 170A and 170B are a metal selected from the group consisting of Ruthenium (Ru), cobalt (Co), Ti, palladium (Pd), nickel (Ni), gold (Au), iridium (Ir), manganese (Mn), W and combinations thereof, with Ru, Mn, Co and combinations thereof preferred and Ru most preferred. Yang ¶ 29 (emphasis added). Claim 1 calls for “an alloy of, or intercalated combinations of Mn with at least one of Co and/or W” (see claim 1 (emphasis added)). Because Yang’s paragraph 29 makes a 3 Appellant contends the following in this regard: “Yang’s six disclosed elements (Ru, P, B, W, Co, and Mn) can be used to make over 285 different two, three and four component alloys, contrary to the KSR requirement that the prior art must consist of ‘a finite number of identified predictable solutions.’ (Emphasis added)” (Appeal Br. 11). Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 10 preference for combinations of manganese (Mn) and cobalt (Co), Yang teaches or suggests the subject matter of claim 1 calling for manganese and cobalt to be alloyed or combined with each other. In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s arguments that the base reference Yang does not disclose, teach, or suggest an alloy of Mn with at least one of Co and/or W are not persuasive. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, and claims 2–8, 15, and 21–28 grouped therewith. For similar reasons, we are likewise not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5, 15, 24, 25, 29–47 over Yang taken in combination with various other secondary and tertiary references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and 21, and dependent claims 2–8, 15, and 22–47, over the base reference Yang. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting (a) claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 21 (based on the indefiniteness of the term “intercalate combinations”), (b) claims 8 and 28 (based on the indefiniteness of the terms “about 3 to about 5 chambers” and “lower chamber”), and (c) claims 15, 29, and 38 (based on the indefiniteness of the term “further downstream treatments”). However, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 (based on the indefiniteness of the term “forming on said top surface of said wire and said sidewalls”), under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 11 (2) Appellant has (i) shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4, 21, 24, and 30–47; and (ii) not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 26, for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). (3) Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1– 8, 15, and 21–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the base reference Yang. Thus, we (a) affirm-in-part the Examiner’s (i) indefiniteness rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 15, 21, 24, 28–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and (ii) written description rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 21, 24, 26, 30–37, and 39–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a); and (b) affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–8, 15, and 21–47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (all based on the same base reference Yang). Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with respect to claims 1–8, 15, and 21–47 on appeal, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–8, 15, 21–47 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (“The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the [E]xaminer on that claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed.”). Appeal 2018-007867 Application 15/150,961 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 8, 15, 21, 24, 28–47 112(b) Indefiniteness 214 1, 4, 8, 15, 21, 24, 28– 47 1, 4, 6, 21, 24, 26, 30–37, 39–47 112(a) Written Description 6, 26 1, 4, 21, 24, 30–47 1–8, 21–28 103 Yang 1–8, 21– 28 4, 5, 24, 25 103 Yang, Peng5 4, 5, 24, 25 15, 29 103 Yang, Chikaki6 15, 29 30–37, 39–46 103 Yang, Thompson et al.7 30–37, 39–46 33, 34, 42, 43 103 Yang, Peng, Thompson 33, 34, 42, 43 38, 47 103 Yang, Chikaki, Thompson 38, 47 Overall Outcome 1–8, 15, 21–47 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 4 The indefiniteness rejection determining the claim term (i) “intercalated combinations” indefinite is reversed; and (ii) “forming on said top surface of said wire and said sidewalls” is affirmed. 5 CN 103000570 A; published March 27, 2013. 6 US 2010/0301495 A1; issued Dec. 2, 2010. 7 US 2015/0004316 A1; published Jan. 1, 2015 (hereinafter, “Thompson”).