Ex Parte FarrarDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201310854552 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 10/854,552 05/26/2004 Paul A. Farrar MI22-5142 7175 21567 7590 09/26/2013 Wells St. John P.S. 601 West First Avenue Suite 1300 Spokane, WA 99201-3828 EXAMINER JACKSON JR, JEROME ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2815 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2013 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 PAUL A. FARRAR ___________ Appeal 2011-002617 Application 10/854,552 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002617 Application 10/854,552 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant is appealing claims 19-22 and 29-32. Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to structures and methods for copper metallization within a semiconductor structure. Appeal Brief 6. Illustrative Claims 19. A semiconductor structure comprising: an insulator layer having a first substance, wherein the first substance comprises an insulator oxide compound; an inhibiting layer above and on the insulator layer, the inhibiting layer contacting the insulator layer, wherein the inhibiting layer includes a second substance, wherein the second substance is selected from a group consisting of a transition metal, aluminum, and a representative metal, and wherein the inhibiting layer includes a compound formed by the first substance and the second substance so as to inhibit undesired atomic migration; and a copper metallization layer above and on the inhibiting layer, the copper metallization layer comprising a copper layer, the copper layer consisting essentially of copper, the copper metallization layer disposed directly above the insulator layer. 29. A semiconductor structure comprising: an insulator layer having a first substance including an aerogel; an inhibiting layer above and on the insulator layer, the inhibiting layer contacting the insulator layer, wherein the inhibiting layer includes a second substance, wherein the second substance is selected from a group consisting of a transition metal, aluminum, and a representative metal, and wherein the Appeal 2011-002617 Application 10/854,552 3 inhibiting layer includes a compound formed by the first substance and the second substance so as to inhibit undesired atomic migration; and a copper metallization layer above and on the inhibiting layer, the copper metallization layer comprising a copper layer, the copper layer consisting essentially of copper, the copper metallization layer disposed directly above the insulator layer. Rejections on Appeal Claims 19-22, 29-32 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious over Andricacos (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0115292 A1; published August 22, 2002). Answer 3-5. Claims 19-22, 29-32 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Andricacos and Moslehi (U.S. Patent Number 6,016,000; issued January 18, 2000). Answer 5. Issue Does Andricacos disclose or suggest utilizing copper metallization wherein the copper metallization consists essentially of copper? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions. Appellant argues: Andricacos recites “The solution to achieve higher electromigration resistance in plated copper originates from the incorporation of dopants into a copper film Appeal 2011-002617 Application 10/854,552 4 during the plating process. The ideal dopants include, but not limited to, C, O, S, C1 and N.” (Paragraph 0024). The addition of dopants in Andricacos appear to be central in the invention of Andricacos. All teachings of Andricacos appear to include dopants in copper. Appeal Brief 9. Appellant further argues: In contrast, independent claim 19 recites, a copper metallization layer above and on the inhibiting layer, the copper metallization layer comprising a copper layer, the copper layer consisting essentially of copper. MPEP § 2111.03 recites that “The transitional phrase ‘consisting essentially of’ limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps ‘and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)’ of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461,463 (CCPA 1976).” Appellant respectfully submits that any addition of dopants would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. This position is supported, in the present specification, at least on page 5, lines 9-16, and page 7, lines 24-26, where it teaches away from copper alloys, copper doping, or other copper metallization layers that do not consist essentially of copper. Independent claim 29 recites similar language to claim 19 as discussed above. Appeal Brief 9-10. The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument that Andricacos does not employ copper metallization consisting essentially of copper: [T]here is no clear distinction between appellant’s “copper” consisting “essentially of copper” and the “copper” or equivalently “copper consisting essentially of Appeal 2011-002617 Application 10/854,552 5 copper” of Andricacos. There is no structural distinction claimed or disclosed in the specification structurally distinguishing appellant's copper over the copper of Andricacos, no analysis disclosed in appellant's specification communicating the level of purity of appellant’s “copper consisting essentially of copper”. Given in Andricacos the impurity level is disclosed as 0.01ppm to 1000ppm impurity level [0029-0031], making the copper between 99.999999% copper (0.01 ppm)- 99.9% copper (1000ppm), the Adricacos reference meets the “essentially made of copper”. Additionally, as stated in the rejection, the impurity segregates to the oxide layer and forms an inhibiting layer of metal oxide material. Accordingly, the copper layer of Andricacos is depleted of the impurity and thus is even more “essentially copper” as it ultimately is more than 99.9% - 99.999999% “pure” copper. Answer 6. The Examiner finds the claimed recitation “copper layer consisting essentially of copper” reads on Andricacos’ copper metallization because Appellant does not specify the level of purity required of the copper layer and Andricacos’ method depletes the impurities from its copper metallization. Id. However, we find Appellant’s argument that by materially altering the structure of the copper layer, Andricacos’ copper layer is not “essentially of copper” as recited in the claims to be persuasive. See Appeal Brief 8-9. Appellant cite M.P.E.P. § 2111.03, arguing that Andricacos;’ modification materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s) of the copper layer. Id. M.P.E.P. § 2111.03 also states, “For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel Appeal 2011-002617 Application 10/854,552 6 characteristics actually are, ‘consisting essentially of’ will be construed as equivalent to ‘comprising.’” Subsequently, Appellant argues: Appellant respectfully submits that any addition of dopants would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention. This position is supported, in the present specification, at least on page 5, lines 9-16, and page 7, lines 24-26, where it teaches away from copper alloys, copper doping, or other copper metallization layers that do not consist essentially of copper. Independent claim 29 recites similar language to claim 19 as discussed above. Reply Brief 3. Appellant provides a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics of the recited copper layer consisting “essentially of copper” are and therefore claimed copper layer distinguishes over Andricacos’ modified copper layer in accordance to M.P.E.P. § 2111.03. Therefore we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of independent claims 19 and 29, as well as, dependent claims 20-22 and 30-32. Appeal 2011-002617 Application 10/854,552 7 DECISION The Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections of 19-22 and 29-32 are reversed. REVERSED pgc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation