Ex Parte Engel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2018

15164063 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
15/164,063 05/25/2016 Brett H. Engel
45094 7590 11/21/2018
HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
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.
FIS920140102US2 8435
EXAMINER
TRAN,TONY
ALBANY, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2018 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRETT H. ENGEL, DOMINGO A. FERRER,
ARUN VIJAYAKUMAR, and KEITH KWONG HON WONG 1
Appeal 2018-002415
Application 15/164,063
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, International Business Machines Corporation,
which is identified as the real party in interest (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal 2018-002415
Application 15/164,063
Appellant claims a method of forming a titanium nitride diffusion
barrier comprising exposing a deposition surface to a pulse of a titanium-
containing precursor gas and providing first, second, third, and fourth pulses
of a nitrogen-rich plasma to form first through fourth titanium nitride layers
with first through fourth nitrogen concentrations, wherein the first through
fourth titanium nitride layers form a multi-layer titanium nitride diffusion
barrier exhibiting gradually decreasing levels of fluorine diffusivity, the
fluorine diffusivity of the titanium nitride layers being inversely proportional
to a duration of the pulses of nitrogen-rich plasma and to a nitrogen
concentration of the titanium nitride layers ( sole independent claim 1 ).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method of forming a titanium nitride diffusion barrier,
the method comprising:
exposing a deposition surface to a pulse of a titanium-
containing precursor gas to initiate a nucleation of the titanium
nitride diffusion barrier in the deposition surface, wherein the
deposition surface comprises sidewalls and a bottom of a
contact opening;
exposing the deposition surface to a first pulse of a
nitrogen-rich plasma to form a first titanium nitride layer with a
first nitrogen concentration in the deposition surf ace;
exposing the first titanium nitride layer to a second pulse
of the nitrogen-rich plasma to form a second titanium nitride
layer with a second nitrogen concentration directly above and in
contact with the first titanium nitride layer;
exposing the second titanium nitride layer to a third pulse
of the nitrogen-rich plasma to form a third titanium nitride layer
with a third nitrogen concentration directly above and in contact
with the second titanium nitride layer; and
2
Appeal 2018-002415
Application 15/164,063
exposing the third titanium nitride layer to a fourth pulse
of the nitrogen-rich plasma to form a fourth titanium nitride
layer with a fourth nitrogen concentration directly above and in
contact with the third titanium nitride layer,
wherein the first, second, third, and fourth titanium
nitride layers form a multi-layer titanium nitride diffusion
barrier exhibiting gradually decreasing levels of fluorine
diffusivity, the fluorine diffusivity of the first, second, third,
and fourth titanium nitride layers is inversely proportional to a
duration of the first, second, third, and fourth pulses of
nitrogen-rich plasma and to a nitrogen concentration of the first,
second, third, and fourth titanium nitride layers.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-82 on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 11-16, 19, and 20 of
U.S. Patent No. 9,406,554 B2 (Final Action 3).
As the Examiner correctly observes (Ans. 2), Appellants do not
challenge the propriety of this rejection (see generally App. Br.). Therefore,
we summarily sustain the double patenting rejection of claims 1-8 without
further comment.
The Examiner also rejects claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ritchie (US 2010/0151676 Al; June 17, 2010) in view of
Konecni (US 6,455,419 Bl; Sept. 24, 2002) (Final Action 5-9).
2 Claims 9-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-
elected invention (Final Action 4 ).
3
Appeal 2018-002415
Application 15/164,063
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ritchie discloses a
method of forming a titanium nitride diffusion barrier comprising steps
involving a pulse of a titanium-containing precursor gas and first through
fourth pulses of a nitrogen-rich plasma to form first through fourth titanium
nitride layers (id. at 5---6). The Examiner also finds that these titanium
nitride layers "form a multi-layer titanium nitride diffusion barrier
proportional to a duration of the ... pulses of nitrogen-rich plasma and to a
nitrogen concentration of the ... titanium nitride layers" (id. at 6). In
addition, the Examiner finds that, while "Ritchie does not teach titanium
nitride layer prevents fluorine from diffusing," Konecni provides such a
teaching and concludes that it would have been obvious "to include the
above teaching in order to show the characteristic of the titanium nitride
layer[ s of Ritchie] as taught by Konecni" (id.).
Appellant argues that the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion of the claim limitation "a multi-layer titanium nitride diffusion
barrier exhibiting gradually decreasing levels of fluorine diffusivity, the
fluorine diffusivity of the ... titanium nitride layers is inversely proportional
to a duration of the ... pulses of nitrogen-rich plasma and to a nitrogen
concentration of the ... titanium nitride layers" ( claim 1) (App. Br. 4; see
also id. at 5-8). Specifically, Appellant argues that "Ritchie teaches
repeating a single set of deposition and [nitrogen-rich] plasma treatment
steps in a loop fashion" (id. at 5-6) but that "[a]t no point does Ritchie teach
or suggest varying the conditions of those multiple plasma treatments" (id. at
6). Appellant similarly argues that "Ritchie merely recites 'the nitrogen
concentration of the titanium nitride barrier layers may be increased by
4
Appeal 2018-002415
Application 15/164,063
adding a supplemental nitrogen precursor"' (id. at 7-8 (citing Ritchie ,r 25))
but that "Ritchie fails to teach varying the added supplemental nitrogen
precursor to vary the nitrogen concentration of the individual titanium
nitride barrier layers" (id. at 8).
In response, the Examiner states that "[Ritchie's] method [ of
densifying titanium nitride layers with nitrogen] is increasing the level of
nitrogen concentration in titanium nitride material and higher duration time
because of further time need[ ed] to process and it is taking place from the
layers 314a and 314b and beyond" ( Ans. 4 ( emphasis omitted)).
Appellant replies to this statement by correctly pointing out that "the
Examiner fails to cite any portion of Ritchie as supporting the allegation that
a 'higher duration time [ of the densification is required] because of further
time need[ed] to process [the titanium nitride layers, i.e., based on the
nitrogen concentration increase]"' (Reply Br. 7).
The Examiner does not provide the appeal record with any evidence
supporting the proposition that Ritchie alone or in combination with
Konecni teaches or would have suggested varying pulse duration and
nitrogen concentration thereby resulting in the above quoted features of
claim 1. For this reason, we do not sustain the§ 103 rejection of claims 1-8
as unpatentable over Ritchie in view of Konecni.
In summary, we have sustained the double patenting rejection but
have not sustained the § 103 rejection.
5
Appeal 2018-002415
Application 15/164,063
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8 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)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6