Ex Parte Foote et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 23, 2002

08857055 (B.P.A.I. May. 23, 2002)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte DAVID K. FOOTE and MINH V. NGO

Appeal No. 2000-1955
Application No. 08/857,055

ON BRIEF

Before KIMLIN, KRATZ and LIEBERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-10
and 16-28. Claims 11-15, the other claims remaining in the
present application, stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant
to an election requirement. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for forming an anti-reflective coating on a
semiconductor structure, comprising the steps of:
(a) forming an anti-reflective layer of a material
selected from the group consisting of silicon oxime, silicon
oxynitride, and silicon nitride on the structure; and
(b) growing a barrier layer on the anti-reflective layer
using a nitrous oxide plasma discharge to convert a surface
portion of the anti-reflective layer into silicon dioxide.
Appeal No. 2000-1955
Application No. 08/857,055
-2-
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Nagahisa et al. (Nagahisa) 5,888,855 Mar. 30, 1999
Stanley Wolf Ph.D. and Richard N. Tauber Ph.D. (Wolf), 1 Silicon
Processing for the VLSI Era 427-28, 441 (Lattice Press, Sunset
Beach, CA 1986)
Admitted Prior Art, page 1
Appealed claims 1-10 and 16-28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahisa in view of
Wolf and the Admitted Prior Art. The examiner's rejection under
the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over U.S. Patent No. 5,710,067 has been withdrawn (see
page 7 of Answer, first paragraph).
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we find that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
invention. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection.
Since Nagahisa discloses a process of forming a silicon
nitride film on a semiconductor structure and treating the
silicon nitride film with a nitrous oxide plasma to oxidize a
surface portion of the silicon nitride film, the examiner reasons
that the referenced silicon nitride film and oxidized surface
Appeal No. 2000-1955
Application No. 08/857,055
-3-
portion thereof correspond to the presently claimed anti-
reflective layer and barrier layer, respectively. However, the
examiner has not effectively refuted appellants' position that
"Nagahisa does not disclose or suggest an anti-reflection layer"
(page 8 of Brief, first paragraph) because "[w]hereas an anti-
reflection coating for ultraviolet photolithography typically has
a thickness of less than approximately 500 angstroms, Nagahisa's
channel protective layer 133 has a thickness of approximately
3,000 angstroms (e.g., column 8, lines 53-55), which is far too
thick to provide an anti-reflective function" (page 8 of Brief,
third paragraph). In response to appellants' argument the
examiner states that "it is noted that the features upon which
applicant relies . . . are not recited in any of the process
claims under rejection" (page 5 of Answer, second paragraph).
Manifestly, the examiner's response misses the point. The
appealed claims specifically recite "an anti-reflective layer,"
and the examiner has not established, in the first instance, that
the channel protective film 133 of Nagahisa, having a thickness
of 3,000 angstroms, would have qualified as an anti-reflective
layer to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing
the present application. The examiner has pointed to no teaching
in Nagahisa that the channel protective film 133 can serve as an
Appeal No. 2000-1955
Application No. 08/857,055
-4-
anti-reflective layer, and has furnished no evidence that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered the 3,000
angstrom thick protective film of the reference an anti-
reflective layer.
In addition, the examiner has not adequately addressed
appellants' argument that "[w]hereas the silicon dioxide layer in
Nagahisa promotes adhesion of the channel protective layer and
the photoresist layer, the present barrier layer performs the
opposite function of inhibiting chemical interaction between
these two layers" (page 9 of Brief, third paragraph).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.
REVERSED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PAUL LIEBERMAN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
Appeal No. 2000-1955
Application No. 08/857,055
-5-
David G. Alexander
Arter & Hadden LLP
725 South Figueroa St.
Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90017-7255