Ex Parte Geusic et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 201512475896 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOSEPH E. GEUSIC, PAUL A. FARRAR, and ARUP BHATTACHARYYA ____________________ Appeal 2013-000778 Application 12/475,896 Technology Center 2800 ____________________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16 and 8–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Aoi;1 and claims 16– 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wenzel2 in view of Aoi. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). We AFFIRM. 1 US 6,387,824 B1, patented May 14, 2002. 2 US 6,150,724, patented Nov. 21, 2000. Appeal 2013-000778 Application 12/475,896 2 OPINION The invention relates to a low-k dielectric insulator for integrated circuit interconnects. Spec. 4:2–6. The insulator includes empty spaces (voids) formed using a surface transformation process. Spec. 4:6–7. Figures 2A–2F illustrate an embodiment of the process, which involves forming a cylindrical hole 210 in the surface 212 of a volume of solid material 214, and heating (annealing) to transform the hole 210 into an empty sphere (void) 216. Spec. 9:4–10. Figures 2A–2F are reproduced below: Figures 2A to 2F illustrate the transformation of cylindrical hole 210 within a portion of silicon substrate into sphere-shaped void 216 Voids of other shapes can be formed. For instance, the cylindrical holes can be arranged to form pipe-shaped voids (Figs. 3A–3C) or plate– shaped voids (Figs. 4A and 4B). Spec. 9:26 to 10:18. The claims are directed to the insulator formed by the process (claims 1 and 12), and an electronic system including the insulator (claim 16). The dispute underlying the appeal centers on the word “desired” in the independent claims, and for our purposes, claim 1 is representative. We reproduce claim 1, emphasizing the word “desired” within the claim: 1. A structure formed to have a desired dielectric constant, comprising: Appeal 2013-000778 Application 12/475,896 3 an insulator structure of an insulator material; and the insulator structure including a desired arrangement of a plurality of voids having a desired void-to-void spacing, wherein each void has a desired shape and a desired size formed through a surface transformation process, wherein the surface transformation process includes: forming holes with desired dimensions and desired spacing through a surface of the insulator structure; and annealing the insulator structure to transform the holes through the surface of the insulator structure into the desired arrangement of the voids with the desired void-to-void spacing, wherein the desired void-to-void spacing and the desired shape and desired size of each void is controlled by the desired dimensions and desired spacing of the holes, wherein the desired arrangement of the voids, including the desired void-to-void spacing and the desired shape and the desired size of each void, within the insulator structure lowers an effective dielectric constant of the insulator material to provide the desired dielectric constant. Claims Appendix at Appeal Br. 25. In both rejections, the Examiner relies upon Aoi as teaching an insulator structure including the required “desired arrangement of a plurality of voids . . .” Ans. 6; see also voids 7 in Aoi, Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)). There is no dispute that Aoi forms voids 7 by decomposing an organic component in an organic-inorganic hybrid film or that the result is randomly arranged voids rather than an ordered arrangement. Compare Appeal Br. 12 and 17 with Ans. 13. The Examiner determines that the language “desired void-to- void spacing,” and “desired shape,” and “desired size” “are broad limitations based on the desired intentions of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Ans. 13. In other words, the word “desired” merely connotes an intention or wish. Appeal 2013-000778 Application 12/475,896 4 The Examiner concludes that “[a] desired void-to-void spacing may encompass both random and ordered depending on the desires of one of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Appellants contend that Desired, as used in the claim, is not any random distribution of voids. Holes are formed through a surface of the insulator structure. These holes through the surface of the insulator structures have desired dimensions and desired spacing that are not merely any spacing that provides the desired dielectric constant. Appeal Br. 18. The problem with Appellants’ position is that it is not grounded on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms consistent with the Specification as read by one of ordinary skill in the art; it is instead grounded on an explanation of the process Appellants describe in the Specification for forming the voids. We will not limit the meaning of “desired arrangement” to an “ordered arrangement” of voids based upon this explanation alone. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)(“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”) (citations omitted). Instead, we consult the Specification and adopt the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification reading the claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Looking to the Specification to inform our interpretation of “desired”, we find no reference to a “desired arrangement” of voids. Instead, the Appeal 2013-000778 Application 12/475,896 5 Specification refers to a “precisely determined arrangement of at least one void” formed from a “predetermined arrangement of at least one hole” (Spec. 4:10–28; 5:1–11)(emphasis added), and describes a process of forming a dense pattern of holes and heating to transform the pattern of holes to buried empty spaces. Spec. 18:27 to 19:16. Although the Specification describes a process in which an ordered or patterned arrangement of voids is formed, it does not clearly define “desired arrangement” as limited to an ordered arrangement. On the other hand, the Specification uses the term “desired” in a manner consistent with its ordinary meaning of “yearned or wished for; coveted,” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desired?s=t (last visited on December 24, 2014). See Spec. 16:5–7 (“One embodiment uses laser pulse annealing to an appropriate temperature close to the melting point of the dielectric, thus achieving a desired empty space filling factor (porosity) and low k value.”) (emphasis added); Spec. 18:4–5 (“Different dielectric materials are capable of being used in different parts of the integrated circuit, as desired or required by the application.”) (emphasis added); Spec. 19:3–5 (“It may be desired to imprint the mask twice with an random offset of the mask between the printings in order to achieve a high density of holes.”) (emphasis added). Claim 1 itself uses “desired” consistent with the “yearned for or whished for” meaning. See the preamble of claim 1, which states that the invention is “[a] structure formed to have a desired dielectric constant.” Given the ordinary meaning of “desired” consistent with the Specification, we cannot say that “desired arrangement” is as limited as Appellants contend. Appeal 2013-000778 Application 12/475,896 6 Appellants further contend that the surface transformation process recited in the claim affects the structure because the position of the voids depends on the position of the holes in the surface. Appeal Br. 11. But Claim 1 does not require the holes be formed in any pattern or size; it encompasses forming the holes randomly. Thus, we do not agree that the process, as claimed, differentiates the claimed structure from the random structure of the prior art. Nor do we agree that the Examiner committed reversible error in interpreting the product-by-process limitations. Compare Appeal Br. 15–20 with Ans. 13–15. Appellants have not convinced us of a reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6 and 8–15 over Aoi. Appellants do not present any additional arguments directed to the Examiner’s addition of Wenzel to reject claims 16–22. Thus, Appellants have not convinced us of a reversible error in that rejection. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejections. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation