Ex Parte Bedell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2014

12180827 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2014)

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.
12/180,827 07/28/2008 Stephen W. Bedell YOR920030340US3 1806
48062 7590 01/29/2014
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1175 Post Road East
2nd Floor
Westport, CT 06880
EXAMINER
SLUTSKER, JULIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEPHEN W. BEDELL, KEITH EDWARD FOGEL, BRUCE
KENNETH FURMAN, SAMPATH PURUSHOTHAMAN,
DEVENDRA K. SADANA, and ANNA WANDA TOPOL
____________

Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting: claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-30, 32-35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
anticipated by Sakaguchi (US 6,306,729 B1, issued Oct. 23, 2001); claims 31 and
36 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi; and claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Sakaguchi, further in view of Henley (US
2003/0113983 A1, published Jun. 19, 2003).2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).3
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The invention relates to layer transfer techniques used in the fabrication of
semiconductor devices. (Spec.4 1:10-11.) The independent claims, claims 1 and
20, are representative of the invention, and are reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method of forming a layer transfer structure, the method comprising
the steps of:
providing a carrier substrate;
creating a porous region in said carrier substrate with a tuned porosity
in combination with an implanted species defining a separation plane therein;
forming a regrown epitaxial layer from the porous region by thermally
treating the porous region; and

1 Final Office Action mailed Jul. 7, 2010.
2 Appeal Brief filed Dec. 1, 2010 (“App. Br.”).
3 The Application involved in the present appeal is the parent of SN 12/472,943,
filed May 27, 2009, which is the subject of Appeal 2012-000659. A decision in
Appeal 2012-000659 is rendered concurrently with the present decision by the
above-identified Board Panel. The present application is a continuation of SN
11/840,389, now abandoned, which is a division of 10/685,636, abandoned Mar.
26, 2009. SN 10/685,636 was the subject of Appeal 2008-005836, wherein the
above-identified Board Panel affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
4 Specification filed Jul. 28, 2008.
Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827

3
forming a device layer having a predefined target resistivity from the
regrown epitaxial layer by processing the regrown epitaxial layer.

20. A method of forming a three dimensional integrated structure, the
method comprising the steps of:
bonding a decal structure to a receiver structure, the decal structure
comprising:
a carrier substrate, the substrate having a porous region with a tuned
porosity in combination with an implanted species defining a separation plane
therein;
a regrown epitaxial layer created from a portion of said porous
region and comprising a device layer having a predefined target resistivity
formed from the regrown epitaxial layer; and
a transfer layer attached to the regrown epitaxial layer; and
separating the transfer layer from the substrate at the separation plane in the
porous region.

Appellants present separate arguments in support of patentability of the
following claims, or claim groupings: (1) claims 1, 20, and 24; (2) claim 8; (3)
claims 13, 14, and 26; (4) claim 32; (5) claims 31and 36; and (6) claim 9. (App.
Br. 4-10.) The remaining appealed claims, i.e., claims 2-4, 6, 7, 10-12, 15-25, 27-
30, 33-35, and 37, stand or fall with the group (1) claims. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
With the exception of the arguments advanced by Appellants in support of
patentability of the above-listed group (3) claims, Appellants’ arguments fail to
convince us of error in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation and conclusion of
obviousness for essentially the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Answer5.
With respect to Appellants’ arguments in support in patentability of the above-
listed groups (2) and (4)-(6), we note that Appellants’ arguments, in general,

5 Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 3, 2011 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827

4
amount to nothing more than statements of what the claims recite (see App. Br. 7-
10; Reply Br. 3-4, 6-7) and, therefore, are not considered arguments for separate
patentability of the claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We add the
following.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)
Claims 1, 20, and 24
Appellants argue the Examiner reversibly erred in finding: (1) Sakaguchi
discloses a step of “forming a regrown epitaxial layer from the porous region by
thermally treating the porous region” (appealed claim 1 (emphasis added); see
also, appealed claim 24)6 and (2) Sakaguchi’s layer 14 has “a predefined target
resistivity” as recited in appealed claims 1, 20 and 24 because layer 14 inherently
has some resistivity (App. Br. 6; Reply Br.7 3)
With respect to their first contention, Appellants argue Sakaguchi discloses
thermal treatment of the porous silicon layer to form a thin oxide film and to close
the pores, but “does not disclose or suggest that the epitaxial layer that results in
the non-porous layer 14 is formed by thermally treating the porous region.” (App.
Br. 6.) Appellants contend Sakaguchi’s thermal treatment is performed after
forming the epitaxial layer. (Id.) Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of error
in the Examiner’s finding of anticipation because Appellants have not clearly
explained how the step of forming a regrown epitaxial layer as recited in appealed
claims 1 and 24 patentably defines over Sakaguchi’s method wherein the porous Si
layer is preliminarily heat-treated to close the pores and form a thin oxide film
prior to epitaxial growth (see Sakaguchi col. 16, ll. 6-18). In our view, the
Examiner’s finding that Sakaguchi forms a regrown epitaxial layer from the porous

6 Claim 20 does not include this limitation.
7 Reply Brief filed Apr. 25, 2011.
Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827

5
region in the manner recited in claims 1 and 24 is supported by Appellants’
Specification which discloses: “[u]sing thermal treatments, the top layer of the
porous structure seals, allowing for the creation of an epitaxial layer” (Spec. 12:3-
5).
With respect to Appellants’ second contention, we note the Specification
does not define “predefined target resistivity,” but discloses that “[s]ince thermally
regrown epitaxial layer 130 can be formed with a specific resistivity using doping
(i.e., with dopants containing ambient during regrowth process) or ion
implantation, thermally regrown epitaxial layer 130 may further be used for
specialized applications, such as for the creation of particular device-type layers.”
(Spec. 16:23-26.) Similarly, “Sakaguchi discloses forming a device layer (Fig.1,
numeral 14; column 16, lines 40-46) from a regrown epitaxial layer
(column 18, lines 58-61). . . . [L]ayer (14) i[s] formed from the porous layer (13)
which is formed from the doped layer (12) (column 3, lines 39-55), i.e. layer (14)
inherently has some resistivity.” (Ans. 11-12.) Appellants have failed to clearly
explain why it was erroneous or unreasonable for the Examiner to find that
Sakaguchi’s layer 14 is formed by substantially the same process as Appellants’
regrown epitaxial layer and, therefore, would possess an inherent resistivity which
meets the limitation of “a predefined target resistivity” as one of ordinary skill in
the art would understand this term in light of the Specification.
Claim 8
As to claim 8, Appellants argue Sakaguchi does not explicitly teach tuning
the thickness of the regrown epitaxial layer. (Reply Br. 3.) Turning again to
Appellants’ Specification, we do not find a definition of “tuning.” The
Specification describes thermally treating the porous region “to regrow the
epitaxial layer to the desired thickness” (Spec. 12: 9-10), and that a desired
Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827

6
thickness “may be achieved by varying the thermal treatment (for example, time of
the thermal treatment)” (id. at 13-14). Sakaguchi likewise describes choosing
appropriate epitaxial growth parameters, e.g., temperature, pressure, and gas flow
(Sakaguchi col. 17, ll. 6-40, cited in Ans. 12; see also, Sakaguchi Example 1, col.
20, ll. 4-6, wherein rate of epitaxial growth was controlled.) Therefore, it was
reasonable for the Examiner to conclude (Ans. 12) Sakaguchi’s method inherently
tunes the thickness of the regrown epitaxial layer within the meaning of appealed
claim 8. Where the Examiner establishes a reasonable assertion of inherency and
thereby evinces that a claimed process appears to be identical to a process
disclosed by the prior art and/or that the products claimed by the applicant and
disclosed in the prior art appear to be the same, the burden is properly shifted to the
applicant to show that they are not. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir.
1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-56 (CCPA 1977). Appellants’ mere
assertion (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3) that Sakaguchi does not disclose tuning the
regrown epitaxial layer thickness is not sufficient to meet this burden.
Claims 13, 14, and 26
Each of claims 13, 14, and 26 recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the
regrown epitaxial layer is processed to form an interposer structure.” We agree
with Appellants that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 14, and 26 is based on
an erroneous interpretation of these claims as not requiring a step of processing the
regrown epitaxial layer to form an interposer structure. (See Ans. 5, 7 (asserting
that “‘to form a [sic] an interposer structure . . .’ is an intended outcome recitation
rather than [a] required step further limiting the scope of the claims”).) The
Examiner’s finding that Sakaguchi’s regrown epitaxial layer can be modified or
used as an interposer structure (see Ans. 13) is insufficient to support a finding that
Sakaguchi describes a step of forming an interposer structure within the meaning
Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827

7
of 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection as to appealed claims 13, 14, and 26.
Claim 32
The Examiner finds Sakaguchi describes forming an SiO2 layer which acts
as a surface protector film for preventing any possible surface roughness from
taking place in a subsequent ion implantation process. (Ans. 8 (citing Sakaguchi
col. 30, ll. 5-10).) Appellants have failed to clearly explain why it was erroneous
or unreasonable for the Examiner to find that Sakaguchi’s surface protector film
meets the limitation of a capping coating that acts as a hardmask as recited in
appealed claim 32 given the Specification’s description of a hard mask as a film
that functions as a CMP stop or as an etch stop (see Spec. 14:4-11). (See App. Br.
10; Reply Br. 6-7.)
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 31 and 36
Appellants argue Sakaguchi does not expressly disclose or suggest the
capping coating comprises interconnects (App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 6), but have not
explained why it was erroneous or unreasonable for the Examiner to conclude “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have [Sakaguchi’s] capping coating compris[e] interconnects for the
purpose of fabricat[ing] operable devices” given Sakaguchi’s disclosure that
“semiconductor devices are formed in the transfer layer (14) (column 11, lines 10-
20) that is formed on the capping layer (15) (Fig.1F)” (Ans. 10).
Claim 9
Appellants argue “Henley does not disclose or suggest wherein the
regrown epitaxial layer is processed using dopants containing ambient during the
Appeal 2011-010897
Application 12/180,827

8
regrowth process.” (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4.) Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive because it fails to show error in the facts and reasons relied on by the
Examiner in rejecting claim 9, i.e., modification of Sakaguchi’s epitaxial growth
technique to include dopants as taught by Henley. (See Ans. 12-13.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
13, 14, and 26 is REVERSED.
For the reasons expressed in the Answer and above, the Examiner’s decision
to reject claims 1-4, 6-12, 15-25, and 27-27 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tc