Ex Parte CohenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 8, 201814619334 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 14/619,334 7590 Uri Cohen 4147 Dake Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 02/11/2015 Uri Cohen 05/08/2018 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. SL-16 8801 EXAMINER SMITH, BRADLEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2817 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 05/08/2018 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 URI COHEN Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 Technology Center Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, and CHRISTOPHER M. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). The Invention The Appellant claims a semiconductor device. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A semiconductor device comprising: at least one patterned dielectric layer having at least one opening therem, said at least one opening having sidewalls and bottom; at least one barrier layer disposed over the sidewalls and bottom of the at least one opening; a first metallic layer disposed over the at least one barrier layer; a second metallic layer disposed over the first metallic layer; and Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 a metallic filling layer disposed over the second metallic layer; wherein: (a) the first metallic layer is selected from a group consisting of Co, Ni, and alloys comprising one or more of these metals, and the first metallic layer has a thickness from about lOA to no more than 40A over a sidewall (at mid-depth) of the at least one opening; and (b) the combined thickness of the first and the second metallic layers over a sidewall (at mid-depth) is from about 20A to no more than 70A or, when the thickness of the first metallic layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) is larger than 20A, from the thickness of the first metallic layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) to no more than 70A. Brown Datta Leuschner The References US 6,187,670 Bl US 2002/0064592 Al US 7 ,344,896 B2 The Rejections Feb. 13,2001 May 30, 2002 Mar. 18, 2008 Claims 1-29 stand rejected under: 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description and enablement requirements, 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention, and 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Brown in view of Datta and Leuschner. OPINION We reverse the rejections. 1 We need address only the independent claims ( 1, 10, and 18). 1 Because we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 we need not address the Appellant's argument that Leuschner is not prior art (App. Br. 33-34). 2 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 Rejection under 35USC§l12(b) The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is whether the claim language, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the Appellant's Specification, sets out and circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner concludes: The term "second metallic layer" in claims 1-9 and "second seed layer" used in claims 10-29 is used by the claim to mean "a layer with thickness and without thickness", while the accepted meaning is "a layer with a thickness" (i.e. a layer has to have a thickness greater than zero). The specification has not explicitly defined non-conformal layers as layers with zero thickness or without a thickness. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term [(Non-final Act. 9)2]. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. . . . In the present instance, claims 18-29 recites [sic] the broad recitation the first seed layer being from 10 A to 30 A, and the claim also recites the first seed layer being larger than 20 A which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation [(id. at 10-11)]. The Appellant's Specification states that "a 'substantially conformal seed layer' is a layer whose thickness on the sidewalls of an opening (at about mid-depth) is about 25-100% of its thickness on the field" (Spec. i-f 27), and "a 'substantially non-conformal seed layer' is defined 2 Citations herein are to the Non-final Action mailed December 14, 2015. 3 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 herein as a layer whose thickness on the sidewalls of an opening (at about mid-depth) is less than about 25% of its thickness on the field" (which includes a thickness of zero) (id.). Thus, the Specification would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable degree of precision and particularly that claim 1 's limitation "when the thickness of the first metallic layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) is larger than 20A, [the combined thickness of the first and second metallic layers is] from the thickness of the first metallic layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) to no more than 70A" means that the second metallic layer can be a non-conformal layer having a thickness over the sidewall (at mid-depth) from zero to the difference between 70A and the thickness of the first metallic layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth). Likewise, the Appellant's claim lO's requirement that "the combined thickness of the first and the second seed layers over a sidewall (at mid-depth) is from the thickness of the first seed layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) to no more than 60A" would have meant to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the second seed layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) is from zero to the difference between 60A and the about 20A to 40A thickness of the first seed layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth), and the Appellant's claim 18 's requirement that "when the thickness of the first seed layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) is larger than 20A, [the combined thickness of the first and second seed layers is] from the thickness of the first seed layer over the sidewall (at mid-depth) to no more than 80A" would have meant to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the second seed layer on the opening's sidewall (at mid-depth) is from zero to the 4 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 difference between 80A and the thickness of the first seed layer on the opening's sidewall (at mid-depth). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Rejection under the 35USC§l12(a) written description requirement For an applicant to comply with the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) written description requirement the applicant's specification must "convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention." Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541F.3d1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The Examiner finds that "the specification does not disclose a conformal second metallic/seed layer with a thickness of less than 20 angstroms" (Non-final Act. 5-6). The claimed subject matter of which the Appellant's Specification must indicate possession does not require the second metallic/seed layer to be conformal. The Examiner finds that "the appellant has not disclosed a second conformal metallic/seed layer with a thickness of 1-9 A" (Ans. 3). The Appellant's disclosures that the first metallic/seed layer's thickness can be 10-500A (Spec. i-f 59) and the total metallic/seed layer thickness can be 20A (Spec. i-f 36)would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first/second metallic/seed layer's thicknesses can be 19Al1A or 11Al9A. Thus, we reverse the rejection under the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) written description requirement. 5 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 Rejection under the 35USC§l12(a) enablement requirement A specification complies with the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) enablement requirement if it allows those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. See In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Factors which are illustrative, not mandatory, see Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to be considered in determining whether a disclosure would require undue experimentation "include (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims." In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art could not have made and used the Appellant's claimed semiconductor device without undue experimentation because the Appellant's Specification "does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit a 10-20 angstrom layer of nickel or cobalt over the sidewall (at mid-depth) of an opening" (Non-final Act. 8), "fails to detail the specific conditions under which the second metallic layer could be deposited at a range from 1-20 angstroms over the sidewalls (at mid-depth)" (id. at 6), and does not provide "any working examples of the deposition conditions" (id. at 7). The Examiner does not specifically address the Wands factors or provide evidence or technical reasoning in support of the Examiner's 6 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 findings regarding nonenablement. The Examiner's mere assertions are insufficient for establishing that undue experimentation would have been required for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the Appellant's claimed semiconductor device. Hence, we reverse the rejection under the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) enablement requirement. Rejection under 35 USC§ 103 Brown discloses regarding the prior art (col. 4, 11. 29--41): To guarantee a minimum seed layer thickness of 5 nm [(50A)J anywhere in the channel opening 106 [(Fig. IC)], including at the lower portion of the sidewalls 109, the seed layer thickness in the wide-open areas tends to be much higher than 5 nm and in the range of 100 to 200 nm on top of the second channel oxide layer 108. Further, an excessively thick seed layer in the upper portion of the sidewalls of the second channel opening 102 would interfere with the subsequent filling of the second channel opening 106 and via opening 118 with the second conductive material. This has become an increasingly greater problem as the width[ s] of the channels and vias have decreased in size due to the size reduction in the semiconductor devices. Brown's invention is a method for forming seed layers in channel or via openings by using a two-stage approach. First, a low temperature deposition of a seed layer is performed at below the temperatures at which agglomeration occurs. This means below 250Q C. for standard thicknesses, below 150Q C. for other thicknesses, and preferably below 1 OOQ C. The absence of agglomeration results in a first seed layer with good adhesion and uniform thickness. Second, a deposition of the seed layer is performed at above 250Q C. At the higher temperatures, the seed material has improved flow and surface mobility which results in better sidewall coverage 7 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 and enhanced subsequent filling of the channel and via openings by conductive material [ (co 1. 2, 1. 5 9 - co 1. 3, 1. 4)]. The thickness of the first seed layer 224 [Fig. 2] is determined by the thickness of the second seed layer ... but the combined thickness will be about 5 nm [(col. 4, 11. 60-64)]. Due to the greater surface mobility of the second seed material at higher temperatures, the combined thickness of the first and second seed layers 224 and 226 [(Fig. 3)] on top of the second channel oxide layer 108 (B') and the combined thicknesses of the thinnest areas of the combine[d] first and second seed layers 224 and 226 along the sidewalls 109 (A') will be about the same. Accordingly, the sidewall step coverage ( A'/B ') has substantially increased [ (col. 5, 11. 19-26)]. Datta discloses "electroless deposition of a thin Cu seed layer on [a] barrier layer to facilitate the electroplating of Cu interconnects. Such a seed layer is typically about 100 angstroms in thickness" (i-f 28). The electro less deposition's reducing agent oxidation can be catalyzed by a nominally lOOA thick layer of Co on the barrier layer (i-f 30). Leuschner forms over the entire top surface of a magnetic memory device's conductive lines (322) a ferromagnetic liner (326) preferably comprising about 400A or less of Ni, Fe, Co, alloys thereof, or combinations thereof (col. 9, 11. 21-28; Fig. 7B). The Examiner finds that "one of ordinary skill would have used the deposition method disclosed in Datta to deposit [Brown's] two seed layers" (Ans. 8) because "[t]he Brown reference does not disclose that one cannot use another method of depositing a continuous PVD seed layer" (Ans. 7-8) and Datta's "cobalt layer acts as a shunt layer providing improved 8 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 electromigration properties for copper interconnects" (Non-final Act. 12), 3 and in view of Leuschner one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the Co layer 20-30A thick to use less material, save money and permit covering sidewalls of smaller openings without pinching off the openings (Non-final Act. 12-13). Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner does not establish that in view of Brown's disclosure that the two-temperature seed layer deposition technique provides the benefits of a first seed layer having good adhesion and uniform thickness and a second seed layer having improved flow and surface mobility resulting in better sidewall coverage and enhanced subsequent filling of channel and via openings by conductive material (col. 2, 1. 61- col. 3, 1. 4), one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason to replace Brown's deposition technique with Datta's electroless deposition. Nor does the Examiner establish that Leuschner' s disclosure of a 400A or less Co ferromagnetic liner (326) over the entire top surface of conductive lines (322) (col. 9, 11. 21-28) would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to make the thickness of Datta's Co seed layer 20-30A instead of nominally 1 ooA. We therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 3 We do not address the Hu (US 6,342,733) reference relied upon by the Examiner (Final Act. 12) because it is not included in the statement of the rejection and, therefore, is not properly before us. See In re Hoch, 428 F .2d 1341, 1342n.3(CCPA1970). 9 Appeal 2016-008253 Application 14/619,334 DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1-29 under the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) written description and enablement requirements, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ), and 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Brown in view of Datta and Leuschner are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation