Ex Parte Clevenger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 16, 2013

12206314 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
12/206,314 09/08/2008 Lawrence A. Clevenger YOR920060392US2 8621
7590 12/16/2013
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
1300 Post Road, Suite 205
Fairfield, CT 06824
EXAMINER
TOLEDO, FERNANDO L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2013 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 LAWRENCE A. CLEVENDER, MATHEW E. COLBURN,
LOUIS C. HSU, and WAI-KIN LI
____________

Appeal 2011-007796
Application 12/206,314
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and BEVERLY A.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 and 3.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 3 are representative of the subject matter on appeal and
are set forth below:
1. An electrical circuit structure, comprising:

1 On page 2 of the Brief, Appellants indicate that claims 1 and 3 are being
appealed.
Appeal 2011-007796
Application 12/206,314

2
at least two generally parallel conductor structures;
a solid dielectric material generally interposed between said at least
two generally parallel conductor structures;
a pinching dielectric material, separate and distinct from said solid
dielectric material, wherein said pinching dielectric material is homogeneous
and is in contact with said solid dielectric material; and
a plurality of relatively low dielectric constant (low-k) volumes
located within said solid dielectric material between said at least two
generally parallel conductor structures and surrounded and sealed by a
composition of said pinching dielectric material and a barrier;
wherein said relatively low-k volumes are structurally configured to
reduce parasitic capacitance between said at least two generally parallel
conductor structures as compared to an otherwise comparable circuit not
including said relatively low-k volumes.

3. The structure of Claim 2, wherein:
said solid dielectric material generally defines a dielectric material
stack; and
said at least two generally parallel conductor structures comprise
metallized dual-damascened via line structures in a same plane as said
dielectric material stack.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Park U.S. 6,861,332 B2 Mar. 1, 2005
Zhu U.S. 2007/0182013 A1 Aug. 9, 2007
L.G. Gosset, et al.,“Integration of SiOC Air Gaps in Copper
Interconnects” Microelectronic Engineering 70 (2003) 24-279.

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Gosset.
Appeal 2011-007796
Application 12/206,314

3
2. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhu in view of Park.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1

Issue:
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that Gosset anticipates
or would have rendered obvious the subject matter recited in claim 1?
We answer this question in the negative and AFFIRM.
Critical to our analysis herein is claimed interpretation pertaining to
the aspect of claim 1of:
a plurality of relatively low dielectric constant (low-k) volumes
located within said solid dielectric material between said at least two
generally parallel conductor structures and surrounded and sealed by a
composition of said pinching dielectric material and a barrier.

We interpret the above-noted aspect of claim 1 as follows.
Appellants’ Figure 2 showing an one embodiment of the claimed invention
is reproduced below.
Appeal 2011-007796
Application 12/206,314

4

Figure 2 depicts an exemplary pinch-off process in which a dielectric
material 8 is deposited over the structure. The solid dielectric is item 1. The
pinching dielectric is item 8. The barrier layer is item 3. According to
original claim 1, the air gap 7 (low dielectric constant volumes) is “sealed
within said solid dielectric material [1].” In other words, the language of
original claim 1 indicates that the terms “sealed” and “surrounded” in the
context of air gaps can be used to define an outer layer 1 that envelops part
of one of the inner layers used to define the air gaps (low dielectric constant
volumes). On this record, Appellants have not identified anywhere in the
Specification that defines the terms “sealed” or “surrounded” contrary to
what Appellants intended in original claim 1. Thus, notwithstanding
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary, we interpret the phrase “surrounded
and sealed by a composition of said pinching dielectric material and a
barrier” in claim 1 as including, inter alia,” a composition of any barrier and
Appeal 2011-007796
Application 12/206,314

5
pinching dielectric layers that surround part of air gaps, but are not
physically touching the air gaps”.in light of the original disclosure of the
instant application.
Having interpreted claim 1 as discussed above, we turn now to the
prior art rejection. On this record, Appellants do not dispute that the SiC
layer of Gosset is a first dielectric material and that the upper SiOC layer of
Gosset is a pinching dielectric as used by the Examiner in the rejection (Ans.
4 and 8). The side or bottom SiOC layer of Gosset relied upon by the
Examiner as a barrier layer surrounds part of the SiC layer that defines air
gaps. (Id.) Appellants do not question that the SiOC is not a barrier
material. Thus, we concur with the Examiner that the side SiOC layer of
Gossett seals and surrounds the air gaps. Appellants’ argument based on a
more limited interpretation of claim ,1based upon an exemplified
embodiment shown in Figure 2, is not persuasive. Limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
In view of the above, we affirm Rejection 1.

Rejection 2
Issue: Did the Examiner err in determining that the combination of
Zhu in view of Park would have rendered obvious the subject matter of
claim 1, and in particular, the aspect of claim 1 pertaining to the following
(the text in bold is for added emphasis):
a plurality of relatively low dielectric constant (low-k) volumes
located within said solid dielectric material between said at least
two generally parallel conductor structures and surrounded and
Appeal 2011-007796
Application 12/206,314

6
sealed by a composition of said pinching dielectric material and a
barrier”?

We answer this question in the affirmative.
Appellants convincingly argue that because the secondary reference of
Park teaches to partially surround the air gap by two conductors, the
combination of Zhu in view of Park would not have led to the claimed
invention for the reasons expressed in the Appeal Brief on page 10. We
therefore reverse Rejection 2.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Rejection 1 is affirmed.
Rejection 2 is reversed.
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