Ex Parte Dewey et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 201915067047 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/067,047 03/10/2016 31817 7590 05/30/2019 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. 1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1600 Portland, OR 97204 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gilbert Dewey 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. P225l3DC4 111548-246471 CONFIRMATION NO. 3357 EXAMINER SMOOT, STEPHEN W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2813 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2019 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): IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com intelparalegal@schwabe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GILBERT DEWEY, MARK L. DOCZY, SUMAN DATTA, JUSTIN K. BRASK, and MATTHEW V. METZ Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL G. McMANUS, and MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Applicant ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Primary Examiner's final decision to reject claims 11 and 13-34.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Intel Corporation (Application Data Sheet filed March 10, 2016, 7), which is also identified as the real party in interest (Appeal Brief filed October 4, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), 1). 2 Appeal Br. 7-14; Reply Brief filed June 6, 2018 ("Reply Br."), 9-12; Final Office Action entered January 30, 2017 ("Final Act."), 3-10; Examiner's Answer entered April 6, 2018 ("Ans."), 2-8. Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 I. BACKGROUND The subject matter on appeal relates to semiconductor structures (Specification filed March 10, 2016 ("Spec."), ,-J 2). Representative claims 11, 1 7, and 23, which are all the independent claims on appeal, are reproduced as follows: 11. An apparatus comprising: a first layer comprising silicon; a first region adjacent to the first layer, the first region comprising oxygen and silicon; a second region adjacent to the first region, the second region comprising hafnium and oxygen, wherein the thickness of the second region is in the range of 5 to 25 Angstroms; a third region adjacent to the second region, the third region comprising titanium and/or nitrogen, the third region having a thickness in the range of 10 to 20 Angstroms; and a fourth region adjacent to the third region, the fourth region having at least one element different than an element of the third region. 1 7. An apparatus comprising: a first layer comprising silicon; a second layer adjacent to the first layer, the second layer comprising oxygen and silicon; a third layer adjacent to the second layer, the third layer comprising hafnium and oxygen, wherein the thickness of the third layer is in the range of 5 to 2 5 Angstroms; a fourth layer adjacent to the third layer, the fourth layer comprising titanium and/or nitrogen, the fourth layer having a thickness in the range of 10 to 20 Angstroms; and a fifth layer adjacent to the fourth layer, the fifth layer having at least one element different than an element of the fourth layer. 23. A semiconductor device comprising: a first layer; 2 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 a second layer on the first layer, the second layer being an oxide layer; a third layer on the second layer, the third layer having a thickness in the range of 5 to 25 Angstroms; a fourth layer having Ti and N, the fourth layer on the third layer, wherein the thickness of the fourth layer is in the range of 10 to 20 Angstroms; and a fifth layer on the fourth layer, the fifth layer having at least one element different than any element of the fourth layer. (Supplemental Appeal Brief filed October 26, 2017 ("Supp. Appeal Br."; Claims Appendix), 15-17 ( emphases added).) II. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, the claims stand rejected as follows: A. Claim 18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,i 1, as failing to comply with the written description requirement3; B. Claims 23-27, 29, 30, 32, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Bhattacharyya4; C. Claims 11, 13-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bhattacharyya in view ofKaushik5; D. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bhattacharyya and Kaushik, further in view of Wu et al. 6 ("Wu"); 3 Although claims 17 and 19-22 were also rejected on this ground in the Final Action (Final Act. 3), the Examiner states that these claims are no longer rejected on this ground (Ans. 2). 4 US 2007/0145454 Al, published June 28, 2007. 5 US 6,448,192 Bl, issued September 10, 2002. 6 US 6,770,516 B2, issued August 3, 2004. 3 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 E. Claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, as applied against claim 26, in view of Kaushik; and F. Claims 31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, as applied against claim 23. (Ans. 2-8; Final Act. 3-10.) III. DISCUSSION Rejection A (Lack of Written Description). Claim 18, which was introduced by an Amendment filed June 20, 2016, reads as follows: "The apparatus of claim 17 comprising [a] sixth layer adjacent to the fifth layer, the sixth layer having aluminum and titanium" (Supp. Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix), 15-16; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that the Inventors' original disclosure does not support the structure recited in claim 18, which now specifies a sixth layer containing both aluminum and titanium (Final Act. 3). The Examiner acknowledges that Figure 9, as described in the Specification (Spec. ,-J,-J 70- 74), does provide support for a "metal replacement gate" (i.e., gate electrode 24), but a capping layer 14 and a barrier layer 16 (Figure 7), which correspond to certain layers required by claim 18, are removed (Final Act. 3). The Appellant contends that the Inventors' original disclosure does provide sufficient written description support (Appeal Br. 7-8 (relying on Spec. ,-J 74)). Regarding the Examiner's finding that certain layers required by claim 18 have been removed in the Figure 9 embodiment, the Appellant argues that other disclosures in the Specification indicate the removal of such layers is not necessary (Reply Br. 9 (relying on Spec. ,-J 72)). 4 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 The Appellant's arguments do not reveal any reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Figure 9 is reproduced from the Drawings filed March 10, 2016 as follows: F!G.9 As described in the Specification, Figure 9 above depicts an end cross- sectional view illustrating a semiconductor structure after depositing a metal gate electrode 24 on a high-K dielectric layer 13, which is provided over a substrate 10 (Spec. ,-J,-J 16, 21, 70-74). As the Examiner points out (Final Act. 3), the structure depicted in Figure 9 does not contain a barrier layer 14 and a capping layer 16, which are required to meet certain layer limitations (e.g., the fifth layer) recited in claim 18. The original disclosure describes an embodiment of the structure shown in Figure 9, as follows: In one embodiment, the gate electrode 24 is a metal. A single metal or multiple metals may be used. Exemplary metals include, but are not limited to, aluminum (Al); titanium (Ti); molybdenum (Mo); tungsten (W); metal nitrides and carbides, such as, TixNy, TixCy, TaxNy, TaxCy; and, the like. 5 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 (Spec. ,i 7 4 ( emphases added).) We find that the disclosure that it is possible "multiple metals may be used," together with the disclosure that aluminum and titanium are non-limiting exemplary metals, would have indicated to one skilled in the relevant art that both aluminum and titanium may be selected as the materials that make up the gate electrode 24. Although the Appellant is correct that the original disclosure contains an implicit description that removing the barrier layer 14 and capping layer 16 is not a necessary requirement (Spec. ,i 72), considerable selections from various disclosed options or possibilities are required to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 18, which now requires both aluminum and titanium in the sixth layer. Indeed, the degree of selections is considerably amplified because no thicknesses are given for the various layers shown in Figure 9, although the thickness ranges recited in claim 18 appear to be disclosed elsewhere in the original disclosure for layers not specifically included in the Figure 9 structure (Spec. ,i,i 24, 28). At most, it may have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 18 in view of the original disclosure. But obviousness is not the proper standard for measuring compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ,i 1. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("One shows that one is 'in possession' of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious.") (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). For these reasons and those given by the Examiner, we uphold the Examiner's rejection as maintained against claim 18. 6 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 Rejection B (Anticipation). The Examiner finds that Bhattacharyya describes every limitation recited in claim 23 (Final Act. 4-5) (relying on Bhattacharyya' s Fig. 1 and ,i,i 16-27). Regarding the 5-25 Angstroms thickness range for the "third layer" specified in claim 23, the Examiner clarifies that Bhattacharyya' s praseodymium layer corresponds to the "third layer," the thickness of which may be calculated from the total thickness (2- 2.5 nm or 20-25 Angstroms) disclosed in Bhattacharyya for the gate insulator 109, which may be a combination of a silicon dioxide monolayer and a praseodymium oxide layer deposited by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (Ans. 3; Advisory Action entered April 13, 2017, 2). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Kaushik as extrinsic evidence to show that a monolayer of silicon dioxide deposited by ALD-i.e., deposition of a silicon dioxide layer at an atomic level-would provide a monolayer with a thickness no more than approximately 5 Angstroms because Kaushik indicates that two monolayers had a total thickness of approximately 7 Angstroms (Ans. 3-4; Advisory Act. 2). The Appellant contends that the Examiner's anticipation finding is erroneous because Bhattacharyya does not describe a semiconductor device as arranged in claim 23 (Appeal Br. 8). Specifically, the Appellant argues that Bhattacharyya's layer 113 corresponds to the "fourth layer" recited in claim 23, but Bhattacharyya's layer 113 does not have Ti and N (id. at 9). In addition, the Appellant argues that Bhattacharyya does not teach a "third layer having a thickness in the range of 5 to 25 Angstroms" as required by claim 23 (id.). Regarding claims 24-27, 29, 30, 32, and 34, the Appellant argues that the Examiner "[f]ail[ ed] to specifically identify which features of Bhattacharyya are believed to disclose each element of these dependent 7 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 claims" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706) (id.). The Appellant's arguments are insufficient to identify any reversible error. Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365. Bhattacharyya's Figure 1 is reproduced as follows: Bhattacharyya's Figure 1 above depicts a cross-sectional view of a logic field effect transistor comprising, inter alia, a Si-based substrate 100, a gate insulator 109 ( e.g., a combination of one or more Si02 monolayers followed by an ultra-thin high-k laminate such as Pr203 or PrSiON) formed by ALD, an ultra-thin (1-2 nm or 10-20 Angstroms) layer of conductive metal nitride (TaN, TiN, or some other metal nitride) 111, a gate layer 113 comprised of doped polysilicon or metal material, and a top layer 115 of metal silicide (Bhattacharyya ,i,i 16-25). Thus, we discern no error in the Examiner's determination that Bhattacharyya's (i) Si-based substrate 100, (ii) Si02 monolayer, (iii) high-k laminate such as Pr203, (iv) conductive metal nitride (e.g., TiN) 111, and (v) gate layer 113 ( e.g., polysilicon) correspond to the first through fifth layers recited in claim 23, respectively (Ans. 4-5). We also find no error in the Examiner's determination that Bhattacharyya's Si02 monolayer would have 8 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 a thickness no greater than about 5 Angstroms based on extrinsic evidence (Kaushik col. 3, 11. 30-33) showing that two Si02 monolayers deposited by ALD have a total thickness of approximately 7 Angstroms (Ans. 3-4; Advisory Act. 2).7 Indeed, the Appellant does not provide any reasonably specific comments on the Examiner's finding in this regard (Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 9-10). Consequently, it follows that we find no error in the Examiner's finding that the thickness of Bhattacharyya's high-k laminate layer would be calculated to be within the 5-25 Angstroms range recited in claim 23. With respect to claims 24-27, 29, 30, 32, and 34, the Examiner finds these limitations are described in the cited portions of Bhattacharyya. The Appellant, however, fails to identify what specific limitation is missing in Bhattacharyya. Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365 ("[E]ven assuming that the examiner had failed to make a prima facie case, the Board would not have erred in framing the issue as one of 'reversible error.' As recently acknowledged by the Board, it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that merely reciting what a claim recites and/or providing a skeletal argument that the prior art references do not disclose or suggest certain claim limitations are not arguments that require the Board's separate consideration). For these reasons, we sustain Rejection B. 7 In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("[E]xtrinsic evidence may be considered [in an anticipation context] when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference."). 9 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 Rejection C (Obviousness). The Appellant argues against Rejection C solely on the basis of claim 11 (Appeal Br. 10-12). Therefore, we limit our discussion to claim 11, which we select as representative pursuant to 3 7 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1356-57. The Examiner acknowledges that Bhattacharyya does not describe a high-k laminate layer that is based on hafnium and oxygen, as required by claim 11 but relies on Kaushik to bridge this gap (Final Act. 6-7). The Appellant contends that "Kaushik does not provide any motivation or suggestion that when two or more monolayers are used they can include hafnium and oxygen" and that Kaushik's hafnium oxide layer does not have a thickness in the range recited in claim 11 (Appeal Br. 11 ). We disagree with the Appellant. Kaushik teaches that hafnium oxide is a high-k material that may be deposited by various techniques including ALD (Kaushik col. 3, 11. 40-45). Although Bhattacharyya does not list hafnium oxide as a high-k material, it does not limit the high-k material to any particular material (Bhattacharyya ,-J 21 ). Therefore, we share the Examiner's view that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to substitute Bhattacharyya's Pr203 or PrSiON high-k material with Kaushik' s hafnium oxide based on the reasonable expectation that these materials would be interchangeable as high-k dielectric materials. As for the thickness, Bhattacharyya provides general guidance on the thickness for the gate insulator 109 relative to the power supply voltage (Bhattacharyya ,-J 22). Hence, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at an optimum or workable range of thicknesses for the high-k dielectric material, including thicknesses as recited in claim 11. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("A 10 Appeal 2018-0064 70 Application 15/067,047 recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). For these reasons, we uphold Rejection C. Rejections D-F (Obviousness). The Appellant does not argue against Rejections D-F separately. Therefore, we sustain these rejections for the same reasons discussed above. IV. SUMMARY Rejections A-Fare sustained. Therefore, the Examiner's final decision to reject claims 11 and 13-34 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation