Ex Parte Annapragada et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2010

11449060 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________

Ex parte RAO ANNAPRAGADA
and KENJI TAKESHITA
______________

Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
Technology Center 1700
_______________

Decided: January 29, 2010
_______________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Applicants appeal to the Board from the decision of the Primary
Examiner finally rejecting claims 16 and 19-29 in the Office Action mailed
October 3, 2007. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134(a) (2002); 37 C.F.R. § 41.31(a)
(2007).
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
2
Claims 16, 19, and 20 illustrate Appellants’ invention of an apparatus
for etching a feature in a porous low-K dielectric layer through a mask over
a substrate, and are representative of the claims on appeal:
16. An apparatus for etching a feature in porous low-K dielectric
layer through a mask over a substrate, comprising:
a plasma processing chamber, comprising:
a chamber wall forming a plasma processing chamber
enclosure;
a substrate support for supporting a substrate within the plasma
processing chamber enclosure;
a pressure regulator for regulating the pressure in the plasma
processing chamber enclosure;
at least one electrode for providing power to the plasma
processing chamber enclosure for sustaining a plasma;
a gas inlet for providing gas into the plasma processing
chamber enclosure; and
a gas inlet for exhausting gas from the plasma processing
chamber enclosure;
a gas source in fluid connection with the gas inlet, comprising:
an etchant gas source;
a protective layer gas source; and
a stripping gas source;
a controller controllably connected to at least one of the gas source the
at least one electrode, the pressure regulator, the gas inlet, and the gas outlet,
comprising:
at least one processor; and
computer readable media, comprising:
computer readable code for providing an etch plasma for
etching a feature into a porous low-K dielectric layer;
computer readable code for forming a protective layer
over the feature in the porous low-K dielectric layer after the feature has
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
3
been etched by providing a protective layer gas from the protective layer gas
source; and
computer readable code for stripping a photoresist mask
from over the porous low-K dielectric layer, where the stripping removes
part of the protective layer and leaves protective walls formed from the
protective layer.
19. The apparatus, as recited in claim 16, wherein the computer
readable media further comprises readable code for depositing a deposition
layer over the protective walls.
20. The apparatus, as recited in claim 16, wherein the protective layer
gas source contains a fluorine free protective layer gas.
The Examiner relies upon the evidence in these references (Ans. 2):
Koshimizu US 5,980,767 Nov. 9, 1999
Bao US 6,962,869 B1 Nov. 8, 2005
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal by the Examiner (App. Br. 4-5):
claims 16, 19, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Koshimizu (Ans.
3); and
claims 20-23 and 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Koshimizu in view of
Bao (Ans. 5).
Appellants argue the first ground of rejection based on independent
claim 16 and on independent claims 19, 24, and 25 with argument advanced
only with respect to claim 19. Reply Br. 1-3; see also App. Br. 5-6.
Appellants argue the second ground of rejection based on dependent claims
20-23 and 26-29 with argument advanced only with respect to claim 20.
Reply Br. 3; see also App. Br. 6. Thus, we decide this appeal based on
claims 16, 19, and 20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

Opinion
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
4
We considered the totality of the record in light of Appellants’
arguments with respect to claims 16, 19, and 20 and the grounds of rejection
advanced on Appeal. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“‘On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.’”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“After evidence or argument is
submitted by the applicant in response, patentability is determined on the
totality of the record, by preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.”) (citing, inter alia, In re Spada, 911 F.2d
705, 707 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Claims 16 and 19: § 102(b) over Koshimizu
We are of the opinion Appellants’ arguments do not establish that the
evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the non-anticipation
of the claimed apparatus for etching a feature in a porous low-K dielectric
layer through a mask over a substrate encompassed by claims 16 and 19 over
Koshimizu.
Appellants submit that Koshimizu does not describe the “claim
element of ‘forming a protective layer over the feature in the porous low-K
dielectric layer after the feature has been etched.’” Reply Br. 2. According
to Appellants, “[c]ol. 39, lines 2-5 of Koshimizu states that the protective
film grows during etching,” and thus, “it is reasonable to assume that the
protective layer has already been formed before etching takes place (or, at
least, while etching it taking place).” Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
5
We find claim 16 is drawn in pertinent part to an apparatus
comprising a controller comprising computer readable media comprising
computer readable code for providing an etch plasma for etching a feature,
and for forming a protective layer over the feature in the porous low-K
dielectric layer after the feature has been etched.
In interpreting this claim language, we give this claim language its
broadest reasonable interpretation from the literal meaning of the claim
language to one of ordinary skill in this art. This is because there is no
disclosure of any description of computer readable code in the Specification
with respect to either of the functions to be controlled with computer
readable code. Indeed, the sole disclosure of such computer readable code in
the Application is in original claim 16 and 19 and in these claims as
amended in the Preliminary Amendment. See, e.g., In re ICON Health and
Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004), and cases cited therein; In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, on this record, we interpret claim 16 as specifying any manner
of computer readable media comprising at least, among other things, any
manner of computer readable code capable of providing an etch plasma
capable of etching a feature into any porous low-K dielectric layer, and
capable of forming a protective layer over the feature in the porous low-K
dielectric layer after the feature has been etched. We interpret claim 19 as
specifying that the computer readable media of claim 16 further comprises at
least, among other things, any manner of computer readable code capable of
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
6
depositing any manner of layer on the protective walls formed from the
protective layer.
In these respects, we determine the open-ended term “comprising”
associated with the term “computer readable media” opens claims 16 and 19
to include an apparatus in which the computer readable media includes
computer readable code which controls the formation of a protective layer
during the etching of the special feature, such as in an apparatus for
conducting a continuous plasma operation as disclosed by Koshimizu. See
Koshimizu, e.g., col. 38 to col. 48. See, e.g., In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686
(CCPA 1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is
propylene, any other monomer may be present, because the term ‘comprises’
permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”).
We find Koshimizu would have described to one of ordinary skill in
this art a plasma apparatus which can be controlled for the continuous
process of etching a feature in a dielectric layer and forming a protective
layer on the dielectric layer, wherein the protective layer can be applied
during and after the feature is etched in the dielectric layer. Koshimizu, e.g.,
col. 38, l. 1 to col. 42, l. 5, and Figs. 47-53. The protective-film forming gas
is a CF-based gas providing the active ions to form the protective layer,
including peripheral wall protective film 503. Koshimizu, e.g., col. 38, ll.
31-32 and 63-64, col. 39, ll. 49-56. and Fig. 47. Koshimizu discloses that
“[a]lthough the protective film 503 grows in accordance with progression of
etching, the growth can be restrained or stopped.” Koshimizu col. 39, ll. 2-
4 (emphasis supplied), and Fig. 47. Koshimizu describes the apparatus with
a controller for controlling the growth of protective film 503 while
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
7
continuously generating plasma. Koshimizu, e.g., col. 38, l. 30 to col. 42, l.
5, and Figs. 47-53.
On this record, neither the language of claim 16 nor the description of
the apparatus provided by Koshimizu supports Appellants’ contention with
respect to claim 16. Indeed, Koshimizu’s apparatus with a controller
provides for restraining or preventing the growth of the protective layer,
which is all that claim 16 requires. Thus, we find as a matter of fact that
claim 16 is anticipated by Koshimizu. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and cases cited therein; In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and cases cited therein.
With respect to claim 19, Appellants submit that Koshimizu does not
describe the deposition of a layer over the protective walls formed from the
protective layer. Reply Br. 3.
We interpreted claim 19 as specifying any manner of computer
readable code capable of depositing any manner of layer on the protective
walls of the etched feature formed from the protective layer. See above pp.
5-6. The Specification discloses a barrier layer deposited over the protective
walls and a copper layer deposited over the barrier layer as examples of such
a deposited layer. Spec. 7:8-11.
We find that Koshimizu does not explicitly describe to one of
ordinary skill in this art the layer that will be deposited into a trench or hole
feature etched into a dielectric layer. Koshimizu, e.g., col. 39, ll. 2-20.
However, this person would have known that the purpose of forming these
features is to deposit therein a layer of material useful in forming an
integrated circuit. Appellants acknowledge that in manufacturing integrated
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
8
circuits, vias, that is, holes, and trenches etched into dielectric material are
filed with copper. Spec. 1:22-24.
On this record, we cannot agree with Appellants’ position that the
absence of an explicit disclosure in Koshimizu of computer readable code to
deposit a layer over the protective walls formed from the protective layer
patentably distinguishes claim 19 over the reference. Indeed, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have known that the hole and trench features
etched in a dielectric layer with Koshimizu’s plasma apparatus would have
deposited therein a deposition layer, such as copper, in further processing,
and would have employed any manner of computer readable code known to
this person with the controller of the apparatus to accomplish this purpose,
which is all that claim 16 requires. Thus, we find as a matter of fact that the
teachings and inferences that one of ordinary skill in this art would have
found in the disclosure of Koshimizu would have placed this person in
possession of the claimed invention encompassed by claim 19. See, e.g., In
re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“A reference anticipates a
claim if it discloses the claimed invention ‘such that a skilled artisan could
take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular
art and be in possession of the invention.’”) (quoting, In re LeGrice, 301
F.2d 929, 936 (CCPA 1962)); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968)
(“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.” (citation omitted)).
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
9
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of anticipation found in Koshimizu
with Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for non-
anticipation and conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence and weight of
argument, that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 16,
19, 24, and 25 would have been anticipated as a matter of fact under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
Claim 20: § 103(a) over Koshimizu and Bao
We are of the opinion Appellants’ arguments do not establish that the
evidence in the totality of the record weighs in favor of the non-anticipation
of the claimed apparatus for etching a feature in porous low-K dielectric
layer through a mask over a substrate encompassed and for forming a
protective layer over the feature using a fluorine free protective layer gas as
specified by claim 20 over the combined teachings of Koshimizu and Bao.
Indeed, Koshimizu does not describe a fluorine free protective layer
gas used as the protective layer gas source as specified in claim 20. See
above p. 6. Koshimizu’s teachings are combined with the teachings of Bao
to evince the use of a fluorine free protective layer gas in protecting low-K
dielectric layer. Boa, e.g., col. 2, l. 50 to col. 4, l. 16.
Appellants’ position addresses only the teachings of Koshimizu and
not the combined teachings of this reference and Boa. Thus, Appellants’
arguments do not address the thrust of the ground of rejection.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Koshimizu and Boa with Appellants’ countervailing
Appeal 2009-001648
Application 11/449,060
10
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude, by a
preponderance of the evidence and weight of argument, that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 20-23 and 26-29 would have
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
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
tc

Beyer Law Group LLP
P.O. BOX 1687
Cupertino, CA 95015-1687