Ex Parte Albertson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2013

11530150 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TODD ALBERTSON, DARIN MILLER, and
MARK ANDERSON
____________

Appeal 2010-012432
Application 11/530,150
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-012432
Application 11/530,150

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 15-18 and 23-33. Appeal Brief 3.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to “methods of forming an integrated circuit
having an isolation layer over a conductive plug that reduces the likelihood
of electrical shorting that results when adjacent conductive lines are shifted
from their desired positions because of mask misalignment.” Appeal Brief 4.

Illustrative Claim (Emphasis Added)
15. A method of forming an integrated circuit, comprising:
depositing an isolation layer over a plurality of
conductive plugs, wherein the plurality of conductive plugs
provide a vertical connection through an insulating layer,
after depositing the isolation layer, etching a plurality of
openings within the isolation layer, each opening exposing an
upper surface of a corresponding one of the conductive plugs
and having a width smaller than a corresponding width of the
corresponding one of the conductive plugs;
after etching the openings, filling the openings with a
blanket metal layer comprising aluminum in direct contact with
the conductive plugs;
masking the metal layer with a photoresist film on the
metal layer; and
etching the metal after depositing the photoresist film on
the metal layer to form an elongated conductive line, wherein
the conductive plugs are formed at one level of a metallization
scheme and the elongated conductive line is formed above two
Appeal 2010-012432
Application 11/530,150

3
or more conductive plugs at a second level of the metallization
scheme.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 15, 17, 18, 24, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lee (Korea Patent Publication Application
Number KR2001-005109; published January 15, 2001) and Tanaka (U.S.
Patent Number 6,713,872 B2; issued March 30, 2004). Answer 3-7.
Claims 16, 23, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Tanaka, and Azuma (U.S. Patent Number 6,051,369;
issued April 18, 2000). Answer 7-8.
Claims 25-28 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Tanaka, and Subramanian (U.S. Patent Number
6,306,769 B1; issued October 23, 2001). Answer 8-11.
Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Tanaka, Subramanian, and Yamaguchi (U.S. Patent
Number 5,981,149; issued November 9, 1999). Answer 11-12.

Issue on Appeal
Is the utilization of an insulating nanolaminate barrier layer to provide
protection to the metallization within an integrated circuit obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art as recited in claim 15?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Appeal 2010-012432
Application 11/530,150

4
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants contend that there is no reason to modify the openings
within the dielectric layer of Lee to have smaller widths than the widths of
corresponding conductive plugs as recited in claim 15. Appeal Brief 8. We
do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. “Common sense teaches,
however, that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
The Examiner finds that:
Nevertheless, Tanaka does teach each opening (13,
FIG. 1F, note that in Tanaka’ specification does
specifically mentioned the WIDTH OF 14 IS SMALLER
THAN 10 as said in “to form contact holes 13 each of
which is smaller than the pad 10 and is opened to the
central portion of the pad 10”, col. 9, lines 18-22)
exposing an upper surface of a corresponding one of the
conductive plugs (10, FIG. 2, col. 9, lines 24-26) and
having a width (of 13) smaller than a corresponding width
of the corresponding one of the conductive plug (10).
Furthermore, Tanaka, Figs. 1A-1F, col. 10, lines 15-
23 does provide advantage such as: “even if an error in
accuracy occurs upon alignment of the contact hole 13
and the pad 10, it is possible to stably ensure the desirable
contact area there-between. As a result, according to the
structure in this embodiment, a semiconductor device
having stable electric characteristics can be manufactured
with a high yield.” Therefore, Tanaka does provide a
SOLUTION for the MISALIGNMENT of the mask that
Appeal 2010-012432
Application 11/530,150

5
can cause the conductive shift which is the same problem
solving as Applicant[s’] invention. And that would
provide a fair good rational to combine [Lee ’] 906, Figs.
3a-3c and Tanaka, Figs. 1A-1F.
Answer 13.
The Examiner finds that adjusting the width of the openings or contact
holes within the dielectric layer to accommodate conductive elements within
the dielectric layer to ensure the structural integrity of the conductive
structure is well known in the art and would be an obvious modification to
Lee based upon the teachings of Tanaka and by thus doing so, the Examiner
articulates reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Therefore we do not find Appellants’
arguments to be persuasive and we agree with the Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 15, as well as, dependent claims 18, 24, and 32 for the reasons stated
above. Appellants argue the claims in three separate groups (Appeal Brief
12-13). We group these claims together here for clarity and brevity since
Appellants have not presented any patentability arguments that specifically
state how each of the claims is patentable over the prior art of record. We
did not find deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15
as Appellants contends. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
dependent claims 16, 17, 23, 25-31, and 33.

DECISION
The obviousness rejections of claims 15-18 and 23-33 are affirmed.
Appeal 2010-012432
Application 11/530,150

6
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

llw