Ex Parte CHAO et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 10, 2019

13277609 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/277,609 10/20/2011 Yen-Chang CHAO
95496 7590 05/14/2019
Hauptman Ham, LLP (TSMC)
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
T5057-R518 7686
EXAMINER
CHEN, KEATH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2019 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):
tsmc@ipfirm.com
sramunto@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YEN-CHANG CHAO, KEI-WEI CHEN,
and YING-LANG WANG
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
Technology Center 1700
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
The Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, 14, 22-25, and 27-31. 3
We AFFIRM.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed Oct. 20, 2011 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated July 26, 2017
("Final"); Appeal Brief filed Jan. 29, 2018 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's
Answer dated Mar. 22, 2018 ("Ans."); and Reply Brief filed May 22, 2018
("Reply Br.").
2 The Appellants identify Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
The invention relates to a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus for
polishing wafers. Spec. ,r 1. At the time of the invention, it was known in the
art to surround a semiconductor wafer with a single retaining ring to hold the
wafer in place on a polishing pad during a polishing operation. Id. f 6. A
drawback of using a single retaining ring is that the overpressure applied by
the retaining ring causes stress concentration in the polishing pad resulting in
deformation of the polishing pad in the form of a wave propagating from the
outer periphery of the retaining ring. Id. This deformation results in an edge
effect, which is the tendency of over-grinding at the edge of the wafer in
comparison with the center of the wafer 10. Id.; see Fig. 1. The deformation
can lead to excessive wear of the retaining ring and can generate wear debris
causing scratches on the wafer. Spec. ,r 6.
The apparatus of the present invention is directed to overcoming the
above-described drawbacks of prior art apparatuses. An embodiment of the
apparatus is shown in Figure 3A, reproduced below.
2
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
270
,..-----,,~
274 272 174 178
260 200
"'" fy-119_..._.···~;...,J,-1-.L.4-J.-----~~~~~h.~ .... ~ ....~ ....~ ....~ ....~ ....~. •,, l 12
FIG. 3A
I
+·"110
I
I
Figure 3A is a cross-sectional view of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP)
apparatus 200. Spec. ,r,r 3, 8. Apparatus 200 comprises platen 110 that is
connected to, and rotated by, motor 114. Id. ,r,r 8, 9. Polishing pad 112 is
positioned on a top surface of platen 110 and rotates with platen 110. Id.
,r,r 8, 10. Slurry 119 is supplied onto polishing pad 112 via slurry line 118.
Id. ,r 8. Apparatus 200 comprises first inner retaining ring 242, second inner
retaining ring 244, and outer retaining ring 150, each of which is secured to
carrier head 220 via first inner carrier body 222, second inner carrier body
224, and outer carrier body 124, respectively. Id. ,r 30.
3
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
During a CMP process, carrier head 220 holds substrate 130 in contact
with polishing pad 112 by applying downward pressure, as illustrated in
Figure 3D, reproduced below.
F. ·1·· G' · ,"\'D i ·• ,5, ~
Figure 3D is a partial schematic cross-sectional view illustrating pressures
exerted on elements of apparatus 200. Spec. ,r 3. During polishing, fluid
controller 260 controls the pressure of pressure media 180 within individual
pneumatic lines to independently control pressures P3, PIA, PIB, and P2
applied, respectively, to membrane 132, first inner retaining ring 242,
second inner retaining ring 244, and outer retaining ring 150. Id. ,r 39. Inside
first pressure PIA and outside first pressure PIB absorb pad deformation in
a region surrounding substrate 130, thereby preventing the pad deformation
from propagating toward substrate 130. Id. ,r 40. Because first inner
retaining ring 242 and second inner retaining ring 244 are interposed
between outer retaining ring 150 and substrate 130, second pressure P2 can
be controlled at a relatively low level in comparison with the pressure
required in prior art apparatuses that use only one retaining ring. Id. ,r 41.
4
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
Of the appealed claims, claims 1, 5, and 30 are independent. See
Appeal Br. 21-28 (Claims Appendix). Claim 5 is representative and is
reproduced below.
5. A semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, comprising:
a carrier head configured to hold a substrate on a
polishing pad, the carrier head comprising:
a first carrier body;
a second carrier body, wherein the first carrier
body is spaced apart from the second carrier body and
configured to fit within a cavity defined by the second
carrier body;
a third carrier body between the first carrier body
and the second carrier body;
a first inner retaining ring connected to the first
carrier body, the first inner retaining ring having a
bottom surface configured to apply a first pressure to the
polishing pad and having an innermost circumferential
surface configured to retain the substrate;
a second inner retaining ring connected to the third
carrier body, the second inner retaining ring having a
bottom surface configured to apply a third pressure to the
polishing pad and having an innermost circumferential
surface configured to retain the first inner retaining ring;
an outer retaining ring connected to the second
carrier body of the carrier head, the outer retaining ring
having a bottom surface configured to apply a second
pressure to the polishing pad and having an inner
circumferential surface configured to retain the second
inner retaining ring; and
a fluid controller connected to the first inner
retaining ring and the outer retaining ring, the fluid
controller being configured to independently control the
first pressure and the second pressure with respect to
each other to form a first step difference between the
bottom surface of the inner retaining ring contacting the
5
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
Id. at 22-23.
polishing pad and the bottom surface of the outer
retaining ring contacting the polishing pad, and to
independently control the third pressure and the second
pressure with respect to each other to form a second step
difference between the bottom surf ace of the second
inner retaining ring contacting the polishing pad and the
bottom surface of the outer retaining ring contacting the
polishing pad.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Hsu US 6,776,870 B2 Aug. 17, 2004
Feb. 17,2005
July 24, 2008
Dec. 25, 2008
Feb.9,2012
Zuniga et al. US 2005/0037698 Al
Saito US 2008/0176486 Al
Kobayashi (machine translation) JP 2008-307674 A
Chen et al. US 2012/0034848 Al
The claims stand finally rejected as shown in the table below:
8,9
1-3,27,28
1-3,27,28
5-9, 14, 22,
23,30,31
5-11, 14,
22-25,29-
31
7
14
§ 112(a) or§ 112 (pre-
AIA), first paragraph,
written description
requirement
§ I03(a)
§ I03(a)
§ I03(a)
§ I03(a)
§ I03(a)
§ I03(a)
6
Kobayashi and Hsu
Kobayashi, Hsu, and Chen
Kobayashi, Hsu, Zuniga,
and, optionall , Chen
Kobayashi, Hsu, Saito, and,
optionally, Chen
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
In the Answer, the Examiner adds new grounds of rejection based on
the same combinations of references, but applies an interpretation of the
polishing pad (recited in each of independent claims 1, 5, and 30) as an
intended use of the claimed apparatus. Ans. 12-13. Based on this
interpretation, the Examiner determines the limitations relating to contacting
of the polishing pad with the retaining rings are not entitled to patentable
weight. Id. at 13. We need not consider the rejections based on the
Examiner's newly-advanced claim construction because, for the reasons
discussed below, we determine the Appellants have not identified reversible
error in the Examiner's rejections in the Final Office Action that are based
on narrower interpretations of the claims as requiring a polishing pad.
Rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 US.C. § 112, written description
Claim 5 requires that the controller is configured to apply pressures
such that there is a first step difference between bottom surfaces of the inner
retaining ring and outer retaining ring that contact the polishing pad and a
second step difference between the bottom surfaces of the second inner
retaining ring and the outer retaining ring that contact the polishing pad.
Appeal Br. 23. Claim 8 depends from claim 5 and recites: "wherein the fluid
controller is configured to control the third pressure to form the second step
difference equal to the first step difference." Id. at 24. Claim 9 depends from
claim 5 and recites: "wherein the fluid controller is configured to control the
third pressure to form the second step difference different from the first step
difference." Id.
The Examiner determined the written description does not support the
claim 8 and claim 9 limitations requiring that the controller is configured to
provide equal or different first step and second step differences. Final 3. The
7
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
Examiner argues, more specifically, that the written description "teaches the
control of pressure, not control of step difference. The step difference is a
result of pressure control, but the step difference is not directly controlled."
Ans. 15.
The Appellants direct us to Specification paragraph 42 for written
descriptive support of the claim 8 and claim 9 limitations. Appeal Br. 10.
Specification paragraph 42 discloses that fluid controller 260 independently
controls pressures PIA, PIB, and P2. When P2 is greater than PIA, "a step
difference SD2 is formed between the bottom surface 242B of the first inner
retaining ring 242 and the bottom surface 150B of the outer retaining ring
150." Spec. ,r 42; see Figure 3D. When P2 is greater than PIB, "a step
difference SD3 is formed between the bottom surface 244 B of the second
inner retaining ring 244 and the bottom surface 150B of the outer retaining
ring 150." Spec. ,r 42; see Figure 3D supra p. 4.
Although neither the written description nor the drawings explicitly
describe SD2 and SD3 as equal or different, those are the only two possible
options. Moreover, SD2 and SD3 are clearly depicted as being different in
Figure 3D. See Figure 3D supra p. 4; Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("[D]rawings alone may provide a 'written
description' of the invention as required by§ 112."). We find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventors invented a
controller capable of independently applying pressures PIA, PIB, and P2 to
achieve equal or different step differences SD2 and SD3 between bottom
surfaces of the retaining rings. We find no basis in the claims or written
description to support the Examiner's contention that the controller must be
8
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
capable of directly controlling step difference rather than indirectly via
control of pressures applied to the retaining rings.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, written
description requirement.
Rejections of claims 1-3, 27, and 28 under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner found Kobayashi discloses the invention as recited in
claim 1 with the exception that Kobayashi's membrane does not include a
vertical section. Final 6. The Examiner found one of ordinary skill in the art
would have modified Kobayashi's carrier head to include a membrane with a
vertical portion positioned in the manner recited in claim 1 based on
Zuniga's disclosure that a carrier head with a flexible membrane having a
vertical portion provides a desired flatness and finish. Final 6-7 ( citing
Zuniga ,r 19). The Examiner found Kobayashi discloses first and second
carrier bodies (see id. at 5), but relied on Hsu, in the alternative, for a
teaching of this feature (id. at 17).
The Appellants contend the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
Kobayashi discloses the following claim 1 limitations (Appeal Br. 11-12,
18):
a fluid controller configured to independently control the first
inner retaining ring and the outer retaining ring to form a first
step difference between the first inner retaining ring contacting
the polishing pad and the outer retaining ring contacting the
polishing pad, and to independently control the second inner
retaining ring and the outer retaining ring to form a second step
difference between the second inner retaining ring contacting
the polishing pad and the outer retaining ring contacting the
polishing pad.
9
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
(id. at 21-22). As to this limitation, the Examiner found that as Kobayashi's
first inner ring 19A moves upward, a portion of polishing pad 16 (rebound
part 30) rebounds and remains in contact with first inner retaining ring 19A
to form a first step difference between the contact point of first inner
retaining ring 19A with polishing pad 16 and the contact point of outer
retaining ring 19C with polishing pad 16. Final 6; see Kobayashi Figures 3
and 4. The Examiner likewise found a second step difference occurs
between the contact point of second inner retaining ring 19B with polishing
pad 16 and the contact point of outer retaining ring 19C with polishing pad
16 when Kobayashi's second inner ring 19B moves upward such that
rebound part 30 moves into contact with second inner ring 19B. Final 6; 4 see
Kobayashi Figures 4 and 5.
The Appellants argue that when second inner retaining ring 19B
begins to move away from polishing pad 16, rebound part 30 moves away
from first inner retaining ring 19 A such that first inner retaining ring 19 A is
no longer in contact with polishing pad 16. Appeal Br. 12. The Appellants
thus contend Kobayashi fails to teach or suggest a configuration wherein
there are both first step and second step differences as recited in claim 1. See
id. at 12-14.
In response to these arguments, the Examiner contends claim 1 does
not require that the step differences occur simultaneously. Ans. 16. We
agree. Claim 1 recites "a fluid controller configured to" ( emphasis added)
control the first inner retaining ring and outer retaining ring to create a first
step difference, and to control the second inner retaining ring and outer
4 Contrary to the Appellants' assertion (see Appeal Br. 12), the Examiner
clearly found that Kobayashi discloses a second step difference.
10
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
retaining ring in a manner that creates a second step difference. Appeal Br.
21-22. The plain meaning of the claim 1 language does not require that the
controller is configured to create these step differences such that they exist
in the same timeframe. See id. Moreover, the Appellants have not directed us
to, nor do we find, any disclosure in the Specification that supports such a
narrow interpretation of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 based on the combination of Kobayashi and Zuniga, as well as the
combination of Kobayashi, Zuniga, and Hsu.
The Appellants do not present separate arguments in support of
patentability of claims 2, 3, 27, and 28. See Appeal Br. 16, 18. Accordingly,
we likewise sustain the rejections of claims 2, 3, 27, and 28 based on the
combination of Kobayashi and Zuniga, and the combination of Kobayashi,
Zuniga, and Hsu.
Rejections of claims 5-11, 14, 22-25, 29, and 31 under 35 US.C. § 103(a)
The Appellants argue the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting
independent claims 5 and 30 for reasons similar to those discussed in
connection with the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16-19. The
Appellants likewise rely on the arguments presented in support of
patentability of claim 1 in traversing the separate rejections of various
dependent claims (see table of rejections supra p. 6). See Appeal Br. 18-20.
These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 5-9, 14, 22, 23, 30, 31 over
the combination of Kobayashi and Hsu, claims 5-11, 14, 22-25, 29, and 31
over the combination of Kobayashi, Hsu, and Chen, claim 7 over the
combination of Kobayashi, Hsu, Zuniga, and, optionally, Chen, and claim 14
over the combination of Kobayashi, Hsu, Saito, and, optionally, Chen.
11
Appeal2018-006109
Application 13/277 ,609
ORDER
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-3, 5-11, 14, 22-25, and 27-
31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12