Ex Parte Hanawa et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 29, 2009

10896113 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIROJI HANAWA, TSUTOMU TANAKA,
KENNETH S. COLLINS, AMIR AL-BAYATI,
KARTIK RAMASWAMY, and ANDREW NGUYEN
____________

Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113
Technology Center 2800
____________

Decided: October 29, 2009
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 29-40, 43-65, 69-91, 94, and 96. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is a plasma immersion ion implantation
process for implanting a selected species of ions into a semiconductor
microelectronic circuit workpiece with a desired ion implantation depth
profile (Spec. ¶¶ [1], [2], [14]). A reaction chamber has an upper ion
generation region and lower process region separated by an ion shower grid
(Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ [14], [63]). Ions generated in the upper region are drawn
through the ion shower grid to a semiconductor workpiece in the lower
region (Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ [14], [63]). The lower region is biased by a radio
frequency (RF) voltage to vary the flux and energy of the ions to more
accurately control implantation and better achieve a desired ion implantation
depth profile (Figs. 1, 31C; Spec. ¶¶ [14], [63]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.

1. A plasma immersion ion implantation process for
implanting a selected species at a desired ion implantation
depth profile in a workpiece, comprising:

providing a reactor chamber with an ion shower grid that
divides said chamber into an upper ion generation region and a
lower process region, said ion shower grid having plural
elongate orifices oriented in a non-parallel direction relative to
a surface plane of said ion shower grid;

placing a workpiece in said process region;

furnishing said selected species into said ion generation
region;

evacuating said process region;

Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

3
applying plasma source power to generate a plasma of
said selected species in said ion generation region, and applying
a grid potential to said ion shower grid to create a flux of ions
from the plasma through said grid and into said process region;
and

applying an RF bias voltage to said workpiece, said RF
bias voltage corresponding to said desired ion implantation
profile, whereby to implant said ions into said workpiece at a
depth below a surface of the workpiece according to said ion
implantation depth profile.

REFERENCES
Aisenberg US 3,904,505 Sep. 9, 1975
Ono US 4,450,031 May 22, 1984
Adler US 4,587,430 May 6, 1986
Kamata US 5,134,301 Jul. 28, 1992
Knapp US 5,508,368 Apr. 16, 1996
Ye US 5,756,400 May 26, 1998
Matsumoto US 6,207,536 B1 Mar. 27, 20011
Yamakoshi US 2001/0021422 A1 Sep. 13, 2001
Amano US 6,392,350 B1 May 21, 2002
Ishizuka US 6,419,985 B1 Jul. 16, 2002
Raoux US 6,432,256 B1 Aug. 13, 2002

The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 29-37, 39, 40, 87, 94,
and 96 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ono.2, 3

1 The Examiner cited Matsumoto in the Answer only as an additional
supporting reference (Ans. 33).

2 The Examiner also “takes official notice that it was known at the time of
the invention to bias the workpiece in order to control the ion implantation
depth” (Final Office Action, mailed July 17, 2007, at 4; Ans. 5), citing
Amano, Ishizuka and Yamakoshi in support of this finding (Ans. 30-32).

Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

4
The Examiner rejected claims 38, and 43-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ono and Aisenberg.
The Examiner rejected claims 48-51, 53-56, 65, and 71-81 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Ono and Kamata.
The Examiner rejected claims 52 and 69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ono, Kamata, and Knapp.
The Examiner rejected claims 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ono and Raoux.
The Examiner rejected claims 59-64, and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ono, Raoux, and Ye.
The Examiner rejected claims 82-86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ono, Kamata, and Adler.
The Examiner rejected claims 88-91 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ono and Ye.
Appellants make numerous arguments addressed herein asserting the
claimed subject matter is not rendered obvious by Ono alone or in
combination with Aisenberg, Adler, Kamata, Knapp, Ye, and Raoux (App.
Br. 3, 4).4

3 Appellants failed to timely file a declaration with their Appeal Brief
challenging the references the Examiner provided in the Advisory Action
mailed October 2, 2007, supporting the Examiner’s official notice.
Appellants later challenged the official notice in a Declaration under 37
C.F.R. § 1.132 filed with the Reply Brief on August 27, 2008. However,
since the Declaration was not timely filed under 37 C.F.R. § 41.33(d) and
MPEP § 1208, Appellants’ Declaration is not considered.
4 Appellants’ Amended Appeal Brief filed February 26, 2008, is referred to
throughout this Opinion.
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

5
ISSUE
Have Appellants established the Examiner erred in finding Ono alone
or in combination with Aisenberg, Adler, Kamata, Knapp, Ye, and Raoux
teaches Appellants’ claimed plasma immersion ion implantation process?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants’ claimed invention applies an RF bias voltage to a
workpiece such as a semiconductor wafer 122 through a wafer pedestal 120
(Spec. ¶¶ [0014], [0063], [0161]; Fig. 1). The wafer pedestal, supported on
a floor 106 of a lower chamber 112, holds the semiconductor wafer in the
lower sub-chamber 112 (Spec. ¶ [0063]; Fig. 1). The wafer pedestal may be
an electrostatic chuck of the type well-known in the art that holds the wafer
by applying a static voltage through an insulator within the chuck and
releases the wafer upon termination of the static voltage (Spec. ¶ [0063];
Fig. 1).
2. Appellants’ Specification states “[d]epending upon the desired
junction depth, the RF ion acceleration voltage applied to the wafer support
pedestal 120 may be relatively small (e.g., 500 volts or less, down to about
10 volts) for a shallow junction or relatively large (e.g., 5,000 volts) for a
deep junction. Some applications may require an RF ion acceleration
voltage of over 10,000 volts” (Spec. ¶ [0161]).
3. Ono teaches an ion shower apparatus includes a plasma
formation chamber 1 for producing ions and a single ion extraction grid 7 for
extracting ions from the plasma formation chamber to create an ion beam in
the form of an ion shower (col. 6, ll. 28-36; col. 8, ll. 6-10). The ion
extraction grid is coated with an insulating layer of polyimide (col. 12, ll.
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

6
25-39). The apparatus also includes a specimen chamber 2 in which a
surface of a specimen 9 positioned on a substrate table 8 is subject to etching
or deposition, or a target is subject to sputtering (col. 1, ll. 6-11; col. 5, ll. 7-
20; col. 6, ll. 28-36; Fig. 4).
4. Amano teaches a plasma processing method for forming and
etching a thin film (col. 1, ll. 7-12). Amano provides for a first vacuum
chamber 21 and a second vacuum chamber 22 wherein the second chamber
includes a mounting table 4 facing the first chamber for a semiconductor
wafer W, which is a substrate to be treated. The mounting table has an
electrostatic chuck 41 on the surface thereof. An electrode of the
electrostatic chuck 41 is connected to a dc power supply and to a high-
frequency power supply 42 for applying a bias voltage to implant ions into
the wafer (col. 4, ll. 38-47).
5. Ishizuka discloses a plasma treatment system for producing an
insulating interlayer dielectric film in a semiconductor device (col. 1, ll. 9-
13; col. 3, ll. 9, 10). Ishizuka also provides for a first vacuum chamber 21
and a second vacuum chamber 22 wherein the second vacuum chamber 22
includes a mounting table 4 facing the first chamber for a semiconductor
wafer W, which is a substrate to be treated. A mounting table 4 has an
electrostatic chuck 41 on the surface thereof. An electrode of the
electrostatic chuck 41 is connected to a dc power supply and to a high-
frequency power supply 42 for applying a bias voltage to implant ions into
the wafer (col. 3, ll. 41-50).
6. Yamakoshi teaches a plasma generating chemical vapor
deposition (CVD) apparatus for fabricating semiconductor devices using a
very high frequency ladder electrode 303 (¶¶ [0024], [0137], [0146]; Figs. 8,
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

7
14-17). Yamakoshi refers to a prior art technique that supplies two different
high-frequency waves to two discharge electrodes. This technique uses one
high-frequency wave to generate a discharge plasma and the other high-
frequency wave to control the surface bias voltage of a substrate, thereby
controlling the amount of active ions flowing into the substrate and the
amount of energy incident on the substrate (¶ [0023]).
7. Aisenberg teaches a plasma ion source to produce a plasma for
ion deposition on a substrate (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll. 14-17). Aisenberg discloses
an AC or RF supply connected via transformer 52 to substrate 22, which
operates at a high frequency (at about 15 Kc or 13 megacycles, for example)
to alternately bias the substrate surface positive and negative by using a
displacement current that flows through an insulating film or substrate. The
RF amplitude applied to the substrate determines the energy of the positive
ions attracted to the surface and can be used to control the deposition energy
(col. 4, l. 65 – col. 5, l. 11).
8. Kamata discloses an ion implanting apparatus 1 for fabricating
a semiconductor integrated circuit device (col. 6, ll. 41-43; Abstract).
Kamata further discloses the selection and implantation of p-type ions to
form a p-type well and the selection and implantation of n-type ions to form
an n-type well (col. 8, ll. 37-58).
9. Kamata teaches pre-amorphous ion implantation with
germanium to render the implanted portions sufficiently amorphous (col. 28,
l. 64 to col. 29, l. 2).
10. Kamata shows in Figs 5 and 6 areas, designated by, for
example, reference numerals 24(P), 25A(P), and 25B(P), impacted at
trajectories other than orthogonal having ions implanted in horizontal and
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

8
non-horizontal surfaces (col. 5, ll. 31-35; col. 8, ll. 37-58; col. 8, l. 65-col. 9,
l. 30).
11. Knapp teaches an ion beam deposition process generally used
to coat substrate products (Abstract). Knapp also teaches using an ion beam
process to obtain an atomically clean surface by sputter-etching the substrate
using an ion beam having a controlled shape, current, and energy to obtain a
highly repeatable and predictable rate of removal of surface contaminant
layers (col. 6, ll. 30-48).
12. Raoux teaches a method for providing improved corrosion
resistance of ceramic parts by implanting those parts with rare-earth ions in a
substrate processing chamber (Abstract). The implanted ions react with
fluorine radicals to form a layer of rare-earth fluoride material at the surface
of the ceramic component (Abstract). The formed rare-earth fluoride layer
is a “passivation layer” preventing consumption of the ceramic part during
further substrate processing (Abstract).
13. Ye teaches a method and apparatus for plasma cleaning the
interior surfaces of a semiconductor processing chamber (Abstract). Ye
removes accumulated contaminant residues attached to the inner surfaces of
the plasma processing chamber (Abstract). Specifically, Ye teaches that
cleaning the process chamber of contaminant deposits to remove the source
of particulate matter harmful to the creation of semiconductor devices is a
critical goal in the ion implantation process (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 15-25; col.
15, ll. 4-14).
14. Adler discloses an ion implantation device in which the ion
source includes one or more vacuum spark gaps arranged to create plasma
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

9
(Abstract). The ion implantation devices are based on pulsed power
technology using a vacuum (col. 1, ll. 50-55).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that
burden is met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the
prima facie case with argument and/or evidence. See Id.

ANALYSIS
1. Rejection of Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 29-37, 39, 40, 87, 94, 96
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 30, 31, 34, 39, 40, 87, 94,
and 96 based upon the teachings of Ono. Appellants mainly argue this
rejection with respect to representative claim 1 (App. Br. 5, 7).
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Ono discloses all the
claimed limitations except for “applying an RF bias voltage to said
workpiece, said RF bias voltage corresponding to said desired ion
implantation profile, whereby to implant said ions into said workpiece at a
depth below a surface of the workpiece according to said ion implantation
depth profile” (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner takes official notice that “it was
known at the time of the invention to bias the workpiece in order to control
the ion implantation depth” (Ans. 5) citing Amana, Ishizuka and Yamakoshi
(Ans. 30-32).
Appellants assert that prior art bias voltage levels are “sufficient
merely to treat the wafer surface . . . but not to provide sufficient ion energy
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

10
to drive plasma ions to typical implant depths” (App. Br. 4; See Reply Br. 2-
4). In support of this assertion, Appellants further argue that the “high
voltage electrostatic chuck of FIGS. 37 and 38” is used to “apply the
extremely high bias voltages (e.g., 10 kV or more per paragraph. 161 of
applicants’ specification) required to provide the requisite implant depth for
typical source-drain junctions” (App. Br. 4) (emphasis added).
Although Appellants assert the high voltage electrostatic chuck is
required to provide the requisite implant depth with 10kV or more (App. Br.
4-6; Reply Br. 2-4), claim 1 does not require the use of either a high bias
voltage or a corresponding high voltage electrostatic chuck for ion
implantation. Appellants’ Specification supports Appellants’ assertion that
voltages of 10,000 volts or more may be applied in some instances (Spec. ¶
[161]). However, this same paragraph states, “[d]epending upon the desired
junction depth, the RF ion acceleration voltage applied to the wafer support
pedestal 120 may be relatively small (e.g., 500 volts or less, down to about
10 volts) for a shallow junction or relatively large (e.g., 5,000 volts) for a
deep junction” (Spec. ¶ [161]; FF 2) (emphasis added). Furthermore,
contrary to Appellants’ assertion that “conventional electrostatic chucks or
support pedestals cannot be employed where RF bias voltage furnishes the
ion implant kinetic energy” (App. Br. 5), Appellants’ Specification states,
“[t]he wafer pedestal 120 may be an electrostatic chuck of the type well-
known in the art that holds the wafer 122” (emphasis added) (Spec. ¶ [63];
FF 1). Thus, Appellants’ Specification teaches that a prior art chuck may be
used with a relatively small voltage level, to perform Appellants’ claimed
ion implantation process.

Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

11
Appellants traverse Examiner’s official notice under MPEP
§ 2141(V)(A) and MPEP § 2144.03(c) regarding using a conventional
electrostatic chuck or support pedestal where an RF bias voltage furnishes an
ion implant kinetic energy (App. Br. 5). As discussed, supra, neither
extremely high bias voltages nor a high voltage electrostatic chuck is
required for ion implantation, nor does Appellants’ claim 1 require them.
Thus, Appellants have not put forth an adequate basis for successfully
challenging Examiner’s official notice that “‘it was known at the time of the
invention to bias the workpiece in order to control the ion implantation
depth.’”
Appellants further assert that Ono teaches etch and deposition
processes in which ions are not required to penetrate significantly below the
wafer surface, if at all (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend that
bias power of any kind is not applied to a pedestal or wafer in Ono, thus Ono
does not teach or suggest applying a “workpiece bias potential” (App. Br. 6).
Therefore, Appellants conclude Ono cannot suggest ion implantation using a
workpiece bias potential as claimed (App. Br. 6).
The Examiner, however, finds that the amount of ions and their
energy incident on a substrate is the difference between depositing,
implanting, etc., and that deposition as disclosed in Ono is generic for
“‘implantation’” (Ans. 32). Furthermore, as discussed supra, the Examiner
takes official notice that it was known at the time of Appellants’ invention to
bias a workpiece to control ion implantation depth (Ans. 5) citing Amano,
Yamakoshi and Ishizuka (Ans. 30). Appellants assert these references do
not disclose ion implantation. For example, Appellants assert that in Amano
the term “implanting ions into the wafer” (col. 4, ll. 46-47) refers to
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

12
“sputtering” not “ion implantation” (Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend
Amano’s teaching that, “[a]t this time, plasma ions are drawn into the wafer
W by the bias voltage to scrape the corners of the pattern (recessed portion)
on the surface of the wafer W to expand the opening” (col. 5, l. 67-col. 6, l.
4) does not show implantation below the surface of the wafer (Reply Br. 2).
The portions of Amano relied on by Appellants do teach ions
penetrating a wafer surface. Because ion implantation in claim 1 is only
limited to “the desired ion implantation depth profile” and not to an ion
implantation of a particular depth profile, even the most shallow
implantation of ions below the surface is sufficient to meet the claimed
limitation. Appellants’ assertions that Amano cannot be interpreted literally
as performing ion implantation is premised on the requirement of very high
RF bias voltages, which were shown above to be unpersuasive. Because
Amano clearly envisions some ions penetrating a wafer surface, Amano is
relevant to the requisite ion implantation.
Thus, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in establishing
that it was known in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention to bias the
workpiece to control ion implantation depth.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, the Examiner finds that Ono implicitly
teaches evacuating a chamber to a sufficiently low pressure and that plasma
is produced in a reduced atmosphere (Ans. 6, 33). Appellants merely
contend that Ono does not relate the ion-neutral mean collision distance to
the grid-wafer gap length, as required in claim 2 (App. Br. 7).
Claim 2 requires, in pertinent part, “an evacuation rate sufficient to
maintain an ion-neutral mean collision distance” (emphasis added).
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

13
Appellants’ Specification states that, “with a proper selection of the
evacuation rate of the pump 118, the upper sub-chamber 110 may have a
relatively high pressure conducive to efficient plasma ion generation while
the lower sub-chamber 112 may have a relatively low pressure for a very
large ion/neutral mean collision distance” (Spec. ¶ [68]) (Parentheticals
omitted). Thus, Appellants’ Specification evidences that proper selection of
the evacuation rate of the pump was known to one skilled in the art.
Therefore, Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2 over Ono.
Claims 8 and 10-12
With respect to claims 8 and 10-12, Appellants contend that Ono fails
to disclose adding electrons into the plasma (App. Br. 7).
Claim 8 requires “providing neutralization electrons.” The Examiner
refers to Fig. 11 of Ono and finds the ion extraction grid 50 of Ono is
cooled, inherently providing neutralization electrons in the vicinity of a
workpiece (Ans. 7). The Examiner further relies on Matsumoto to support
the assertion made above that the cooled grid in Ono provides neutralization
electrons near the workpiece (Ans. 33). However, as Appellants correctly
assert, neither Ono, nor Matsumoto teaches or suggests gas injectors in the
process region (App. Br. 7). Thus, because no support has been identified in
these references for generating a flow of electrons from an electron gun or
injecting an electron-donor gas, as recited in claims 10 and 11, Appellants
have shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 11, but not of
claims 8 and 12.

Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

14
Claims 29-33
With respect to claim 29, the Examiner finds that a torroidal plasma
force is a known means of generating plasma (Ans. 33-34). The Examiner,
however, has merely relied on Figures 1 and 6 of Ono (Ans. 8). As
Appellants correctly assert, the relied on portions of Ono do not teach or
suggest “generating a torroidal plasma current.” Thus, Appellants have
shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29, as well as claims 30-33
dependent therefrom.
Claims 35-37
With respect to claims 35-37, the Examiner finds Ono teaches
depositing a layer of polyimide on a surface of a conducting plate, the
conducting plate being an interior surface of the reactor chamber (Ans. 9, 10,
34, 35; FF 3). Appellants contend that Ono merely teaches how to fabricate
a grid and not the “deposition of a layer on interior chamber surfaces
generally (for example, all of them), not just on a grid” as claimed (App. Br.
8).
Claims 35-37 require depositing a layer of process-compatible
material on reactor chamber interior surfaces without specifying deposition
on all of the interior surfaces of the chamber. The ion extraction grid of Ono
is contained within the reactor chamber, so surfaces on the grid are also
interior chamber surfaces (FF 3). Ono describes the upper surfaces of the
grid as being coated with an insulating layer of polyimide, which is
compatible with the process of ion implantation (FF 3). Because Ono
teaches the required depositing the process-compatible material on the
chamber interior surfaces, Appellants have not established the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 35-37 over Ono.
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

15
2. Rejection of Claims 38 and 43-47
The Examiner rejected claims 38 and 43-47 over Ono and Aisenberg
(Ans. 12-15, 35). The Examiner finds that Ono teaches the invention of
claim 38 except for adjusting ion energy at the workpiece surface by
adjusting the frequency of the RF bias voltage (Ans. 12). The Examiner
finds Aisenberg shows it is well known to adjust the frequency of the RF
bias voltage while routine experimentation and optimization would have
obtained the optimal or desired effect (Ans. 12-14, 35; FF 7).
Appellants argue this rejection with respect to claim 38 and assert
Ono and Aisenberg do not teach adjusting bias frequency for adjusting ion
energy as required by claim 38 (App. Br. 8).
Aisenberg teaches the RF amplitude applied to the substrate
determines the energy of the ions attracted to the workpiece surface (FF 7).
However, this is not the same as adjusting the frequency of the RF bias
voltage to adjust ion energy at the workpiece surface as claimed. The
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect
to claim 38. However, since the teachings of Ono and Aisenberg with
respect to the recited features of claims 43-47 have not been specifically
addressed, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 43-47.
3. Rejection of Claims 48-51, 53-56, 65, and 71-81
The Examiner rejected claims 48-51, 53-56, 65, and 71-81 over Ono
and Kamata (Ans. 15, 16, 35, 36).
Claims 48-51, 65, and 71-73
Specifically, the Examiner finds Ono broadly discloses ion
implantation and Kamata teaches the selected species is a dopant impurity
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

16
that promotes one of a p-type or n-type conductivity in a semiconductor
material (FF 8). The Examiner finds the desired depth profile can be a
desired p-n junction depth, whereby the bias voltage affects the junction
depth. (Ans. 15, 36).
Appellants assert there is no motivation to combine Ono and Kamata
to produce the claimed invention because the two references are unrelated
(App. Br. 9). Appellants also assert the combination of Ono and Kamata
would not result in plasma immersion ion implantation as claimed (App. Br.
9; FF 8). However, Appellants provide no explanation why this is the case
or how Ono and Kamata are different from the claimed plasma immersion
ion implantation process.
As discussed above, the Examiner correctly finds Ono broadly
discloses ion implantation as set forth above. Therefore Ono and Kamata
can be combined as they both teach ion implantation (FF 8). Further,
Kamata is merely cited as teaching commonly known impurity species that
promote p-type or n-type conductivity in the implanted regions (Ans. 36; FF
8). Thus, Appellants have not shown the examiner erred by combining the
ion implantation taught by Ono with a selected species that promotes a p-
type or n-type conductivity taught by Kamata to arrive at Appellants’
claimed invention.
Claims 53-56 and 75-77
The Examiner finds Kamata teaches the required amorphization
process carried out prior to an ion implantation process (Ans. 16, 36).
Appellants argue the rejection of claims 53-56 and 75-77 together and
contend none of the references disclose an amorphization process carried out
prior to an ion implantation process (App. Br. 10). However, we find that
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

17
Kamata does teach pre-amorphous ion implantation with germanium to
render implanted portions sufficiently amorphous (FF 9). Therefore,
Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 53-56
and 75-77 over Ono and Kamata
Claim 74
The Examiner finds Kamata teaches the required ion implantation on
horizontal and non-horizontal surfaces (Ans. 17, 18, 36). Appellants
contend Ono and Kamata are incapable of performing ion implantation on
vertical surfaces as required by claim 74 (App. Br. 10).
Kamata discloses semiconductor devices having horizontal and non-
horizontal surfaces formed by an ion implanting apparatus (FF 10). Claim
74 only requires “a significant fraction of ions impacting said workpiece at
trajectories other than orthogonal to said [sic] whereby to [sic] implant ions
in said horizontal and non-horizontal surfaces of said workpiece.” Thus,
Kamata teaches ions impacting a workpiece at trajectories other than
orthogonal to implant ions in horizontal and non-horizontal surfaces of the
workpiece as claimed. Appellants have provided no persuasive evidence to
the contrary. Therefore, Appellants have not established the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 74 over Ono and Kamata.
Claims 78-81
The Examiner rejected claims 78-81 over Ono and Kamata (Ans. 19,
36). The Examiner finds that Kamata teaches an ion bombardment species
for co-implantation with a dopant impurity (Ans. 19). Appellants assert
Kamata is incapable of simultaneously implanting two different species, as
required by claims 78-81, because it is tuned to a single charge/mass ratio
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

18
(App. Br. 10). The Examiner further responds that such features are not
recited in the claims (Ans. 36).
While the implantation with germanium is not disclosed to take place
simultaneously with the boron implantation, as stated by the Examiner, the
claims are not so limited. In fact, Kamata teaches pre-amorphous ion
implantation with germanium to render implanted portions sufficiently
amorphous (FF 9), which means that both species are co-implanted and
remain in the implanted region. Thus, Appellants have not established the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 78-81 over Ono and Kamata.

4. Rejection of Claims 52 and 69
The Examiner rejected claims 52 and 69 over Ono, Kamata, and
Knapp (Ans. 20, 21). The Examiner finds that Ono and Kamata teach the
features of claims 52 and 69 except for a co-implant ion bombardment
element that removes, from a top surface of the workpiece, and a material
that accumulates during implantation of a dopant impurity (Ans. 20). The
Examiner also finds that Knapp teaches using ion extraction to clean the
surface of the substrate by sputter-etching (Ans. 20, FF 11).
Appellants rely on the same arguments presented for claim 78 (App.
Br. 11) which were found to be unpersuasive. Thus, Appellants have not
established the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 52 and 69 over Ono,
Kamata, and Knapp.
5. Rejection of Claims 57 and 58
The Examiner rejected claims 57 and 58 over Ono and Raoux (Ans.
21-23). The Examiner finds Raoux teaches the required deposition of a
passivation layer (Ans. 22).
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

19
Appellants contend Raoux is directed to ion implanting a chosen
species of ions beneath a surface of a workpiece, which does not result in the
deposition of a layer of chosen ion species on the workpiece surface as
claimed (App. Br. 11).
Claim 57 requires “attracting passivation layer-forming species . . . to
form a passivation layer on said workpiece.” Raoux teaches implanting
rare-earth ions using an implantation technique based on a ion source (FF
12). The implanted ions in Raoux react with fluorine radicals to form a layer
of rare-earth fluoride material at the surface of the ceramic component
Raoux describes as a “passivation layer” (FF 12). The rare-earth fluoride
layer formed as a passivation layer in Raoux is a passivation layer deposited
on a workpiece that includes the chosen ion species, as claimed. Thus,
Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 57
and 58 over Ono and Raoux.
6. Rejection of Claims 59-64 and 70
The Examiner rejected claims 59-64 and 70 over Ono, Raoux, and Ye
(Ans. 23, 24). The Examiner finds Ono and Raoux teach the claimed
introduction of a passivation process gas except for explicitly disclosing
attracting passivation layer-forming species from the plasma to form a
passivation layer on interior surfaces (Ans. 23, 24). The Examiner then cites
Ye as showing it is well known that residues from a process will form on
interior walls of a processing chamber (Ans. 23, 24; FF 13).
Appellants contend Raoux has nothing to do with layer deposition and
make substantially the same arguments as those made above with respect to
claims 57 and 58 (App. Br. 11). That is, Appellants argue that Raoux
teaches a surface treatment and has “nothing to do with a deposition of a
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

20
layer” (App. Br. 11). However, Appellants do not address the disclosure of
Ye related to depositing a residue layer on the interior surfaces of the
chamber.
For the reasons stated by the Examiner and based on the teachings of
the references, the combination of Ono, Raoux and Ye teaches the claimed
passivation layer on the interior surfaces of the reactor chamber. Therefore,
Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 59-64
and 70 over Ono, Raoux, and Ye.
7. Rejection of Claims 82-86
The Examiner rejected claims 82-86 over the combination of Ono,
Kamata, and Adler (Ans. 25-27). The Examiner finds Ono and Kamata
teach Appellants’ invention except neither explicitly discloses the steps of
pulse modulating a bias potential and/or source power (Ans. 25, 26). The
Examiner then cites Adler for teaching this feature (Ans. 26; FF 14).
Appellants assert Ono and Kamata do not teach Appellants’ invention,
as set forth above, but also that Adler does not suggest the various claimed
pulse modulation techniques (App. Br. 12).
Adler teaches an ion implantation process including generating
plasma when a pulsed spark is initiated across a gap between two electrodes
(FF 14) that pulses or modulates the voltage from the electrodes. Thus,
because Adler’s pulsed spark pulse modulates a bias voltage as claimed,
Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 82-86
over Ono, Kamata, and Adler.
8. Rejection of Claims 88-91
The Examiner rejected claims 88-91 as obvious over Ono and Ye
(Ans. 27-29). The Examiner finds Ono teaches Appellants’ claimed
Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

21
invention except for the additional step of cleaning the interior surfaces of
the reactor chamber (Ans. 28). The Examiner finds Ye teaches that cleaning
the process chamber prevents or reduces contamination during processing
(Ans. 28).
Appellants merely assert neither Ono nor Ye teaches or suggests an
ion implantation process including a pre-implant clean step (App. Br. 12),
without providing any support for this allegation or pointing to any error in
the Examiner’s findings with sufficient specificity. Therefore, Appellants
have not established the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 88-91.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not established the Examiner erred in finding Ono
alone or in combination with Adler, Kamata, Ye, and Raoux, teach or
suggest the plasma immersion ion implantation process of claims 1-4, 6-8,
12, 34-37, 39, 40, 43-65, 69-91, 94, and 96.
Appellants have established the Examiner erred in finding Ono alone
or in combination with Aisenberg, Kamata, and Knapp, teach or suggest the
plasma immersion ion implantation process of claims 10, 11, 29-33, and 38.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 34-37, 39, 40,
43-65, 69-91, 94, and 96 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10, 11, 29-33, and 38 is
reversed.

Appeal 2009-004456
Application 10/896,113

22
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

KIS

PATENT COUNSEL, M/S 2061
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
Legal Affairs Department
P. O. Box 450A
Santa Clara, CA 95052