Ex Parte Allen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 10, 2016

12754473 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121754,473 04/05/2010 Adolph Miller Allen
44257 7590 06/14/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
014067/USA02/MDP/COPPER 6793
EXAMINER
WANGA, TIMON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/14/2016 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADOLPH MILLER ALLEN,
LARA HA WRYLCHAK, ZHIGANG XIE, MUHAMMAD M. RASHEED,
RONGJUN WANG, XIANMIN TANG, ZHENDONG LIU,
TZA-JING GUNG, SRINIVAS GANDIKOTA, MEI CHANG,
MICHAEL S. COX, DONNY YOUNG, KIRANKUMAR SA V ANDAIAH,
and ZHENBIN GE
Appeal2015-002140
Application 12/754,473
Technology Center 1700
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, GEORGE C. BEST, and
BRIAND. R_ANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-10, and 16 of Application
12/754,473 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act. (July 31, 2013).
Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Applied Materials, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002140
Application 12/754,473
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The '4 73 Application describes methods and apparatus for forming
metal and dielectric layers. Spec. ,-i 2. Specific embodiments relate to
methods for forming a metal gate and associated dielectric layers. Id. In
particular, the claimed methods and apparatus use a high-pressure RF DC
PVD chamber to deposit a metal film on the substrate. Id. at ,-i,-i 11-12.
Claim 1 is representative of the '4 73 Application's claims and is
reproduced below:
1. A plasma processing chamber comprising:
a target having a first surface that is in contact with a processing
region and a second surface that is opposite the first surface;
an RF power supply coupled to the target;
a DC power supply coupled to the target;
a substrate support having a substrate receiving surface;
a cover ring disposed below the substrate receiving surface; and
a magnetron disposed adjacent to the second surface of the
target, wherein the magnetron comprises:
an outer pole comprising a plurality of magnets; and
an inner pole comprising a plurality of magnets, wherein
the outer and inner poles form an open-loop magnetron
assembly.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2015-002140
Application 12/754,473
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Smolanoff,2 Juliano,3 Le,4
and Tepman. 5 Final Act. 2.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Smolanoff, Juliano, Le, Tepman, and Kudela. 6
Final Act. 4.
3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Smolanoff, Juliano, Le, Tepman, and
Schaefer. 7 Final Act. 5.
4. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Smolanoff, Juliano, Le, Tepman, and Miller. 8
Final Act. 5.
5. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Smolanoff, Juliano, Le, Tepman, iviiller,
and Pavloff.9 Final Act. 6.
2 US 6, 117,279, issued September 12, 2000.
3 US 7,179,351 Bl, issued February 20, 2007.
4 US 7,041,200 B2, issued May 9, 2006.
5 US 5,540,821, issued July 30, 1996.
6 US 2010/0104771 Al, published April 29, 2010.
7 US 5,293,126, issued March 8, 1994.
8 US 2006/0076232 Al, published April 13, 2006.
9 US 2008/0099329 Al, published May 1, 2008.
3
Appeal2015-002140
Application 12/754,473
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Smolanoff, Le, Miller, and Juliano. Final
Act. 9.
DISCUSSION
The '4 73 Application has three independent claims on appeal-claims
1, 6, and 16. Each of these claims is directed to, in relevant part, a plasma
processing chamber comprising a magnetron that comprises an outer pole
and an inner pole, "wherein the outer and inner poles form an open-loop
magnetron assembly." See '4 73 Application, claims 1, 6, and 16.
Appellants raise a single issue on appeal: whether the Examiner erred
by finding that Juliano describes or suggests the claimed plasma processing
chamber having an open-loop magnetron assembly. See Appeal Br. 7-13.
Accordingly, we confine our discussion to this issue.
The Examiner found that Juliano describes "the use of a magnetron
assembly vvhose magnets are arranged to create an open-loop assembly."
Final Act. 2 (citing Juliano Figs. 8A and 8B). The Examiner concluded that
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to use the open-loop assembly features of Juliano in
combination with Smolanoff's structure because it allows for the splattered
area of the target to be broadened, thereby providing more uniform erosion
of the target material. Id. at 3 (citing Juliano col. 1, 11. 49-53).
Appellants argue that the Examiner's finding is erroneous because
Juliano describes "a magnetron sputtering apparatus that adds a closed
plasma loop to an open plasma loop to form a closed plasma loop." Appeal
Br. 7. Appellants further argue that the '473 Application's independent
claims are limited to a plasma processing chamber comprising a magnetron
4
Appeal2015-002140
Application 12/754,473
the does not include any closed plasma loops. Id. at 8. In other words,
Appellants argue that the claimed arrangement of outer and inner poles of
the plurality of magnets that form an open-loop magnetron assembly do not
include any closed-loop design. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We shall assume
arguendo that Appellants have correctly identified the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the '4 73 Application's claims in view of its Specification.
Even if Appellants' claim interpretation is correct, we find that the Examiner
did not err in finding that Juliano describes a plurality of magnets arranged
to form an open-loop magnetron assembly.
The Examiner relied upon Figures 8A and 8B of Juliano as describing
the claimed arrangement. Juliano' s Specification describes these figures as
follows:
A relatively easier way of forming an open plasma loop is
to employ magnets that are oriented parallel to the target surface.
This embodiment of the present invention is schematically
illustrated in FIG. 8A. In FIG. 8A, a magnet 808 is oriented
parallel to a target SOl. Because there are no field loops on either
side of plasma loop S05, the chances of having an unintended
auxiliary track is decreased. Several magnets SOS (i.e., SOS-1,
SOS-2, ... ) may be placed side by side to form a continuous open
loop path as shown in the plan view of FIG. SB. FIG. SB shows
the locations of magnets SOS and plasma loop S05 relative to
target SOl. In FIG. SB, plasma loop S05 flows across target SOl
in the direction indicated by an arrow S09. Magnets SOS may be
configured to achieve a particular type of open plasma loop. In
the interest of clarity, FIG. SA does not show all of the magnetic
components. For example, in order to form a self-sustaining
magnetron plasma, it may be necessary to employ additional
magnets to enclose plasma 809 within a separatrix surface
containing a closed plasma loop.
Juliano col. 4, line 51-col. 5, line 2 (emphasis added).
5
Appeal2015-002140
Application 12/754,473
Appellants rely upon the last sentence of the description quoted above
as supporting their argument. See Final Act. 7. This reliance is misplaced.
The passage quoted above states that it may be necessary to employ
additional magnets to enclose open plasma loop 809 within a closed plasma
loop. This statement would describe or suggest to a person having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention that it also may not be necessary to
enclose open plasma loop 809 within a closed plasma loop. Indeed, Figure
SB depicts an open plasma loop that is not enclosed within a closed plasma
loop.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the Examiner's finding that
Juliano describes or suggests the claimed plurality of magnets arranged to
form an open-loop magnetron assembly, even if Appellants' claim
construction is correct.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-10
and 16.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
6