Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

13157179 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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.
13/157,179 06/09/2011 Yu-Lien HUANG T5057-Y480 6622
95496 7590 09/01/2017
Hauptman Ham, LLP (TSMC)
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ENAD, CHRISTINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2823
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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):
tsmc@ipfirm.com
sramunto @ ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU-LIEN HUANG, ZIWEI FANG, TSAN-CHUN
WANG, CHII-MING WU, and CHUN HSIUNG TSAI
Appeal 2016-007406
Application 13/157,1791
Technology Center 2800
Before TERRY J. OWENS, MARK NAGUMO, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—3, 5—18, and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In our Opinion, we refer to the Specification filed June 9, 2011 (“Spec.”);
the Final Action mailed February 26, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory
Action mailed May 29, 2015 (“Advis. Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed
September 14, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 25,
2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed July 25, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-007406
Application 13/157,179
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of manufacturing an
integrated circuit or gate structure for an integrated circuit wherein a hard
mask layer is treated by an implanting or doping process to be more resistant
to etching in subsequent processes. Spec. 118. After the implanting or
doping process, the treated hard mask layer is annealed to allow the
introduced species to settle in the treated hard mask layer. Id. 126.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed language emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of fabricating an integrated circuit device, the
method comprising:
providing a substrate;
forming a material layer over the substrate;
forming a hard mask layer over the material layer;
providing a treatment to the hard mask layer to introduce
dopants therein, wherein a dose of the treatment is not less than
about 1E16 ions/cm2;
annealing the treated hard mask layer, and
patterning the treated hard mask layer and the material
layer.
Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Chang etal. US 6,750,127 B1 June 15, 2004
(“Chang”)
Mehrad et al. US 2009/0166629 Al July 2, 2009
(“Mehrad”)
Kohli et al. US 2009/0179280 Al July 16, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-007406
Application 13/157,179
(“Kohli”)
Okumura et al. US 2009/0233385 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
(“Okumura”)
Sung et al. US 2011/0108894 Al May 12, 2011
(“Sung”)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains and Appellants seek our review of the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): (1) claims 1—3, 6, 7, 11—13,
15, 17, and 18 over Chang in view of Sung; (2) claims 5 and 16 over Chang
in view of Sung and further in view of Mehrad; (3) claims 8—10 over Chang
in view of Sung and further in view of Okumura; and (4) claims 14 and 21
over Chang in view of Sung and further in view of Kohli. Final Act. 3, 7—9;
Appeal Br. 5.
Claims 19 and 20 are allowed. Final Act. 10.
OPINION
We need address only independent claim 1 in this Opinion.3
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Chang discloses a
method of fabricating an integrated circuit device comprising providing a
substrate; forming a material layer (polysilicon layer) over the substrate;
forming a hard mask layer (amorphous carbon layer) over the material layer;
providing a treatment to the hard mask layer to introduce dopants therein,
wherein a dose of the treatment is not less than about 1E16 ions/cm2; and
patterning the treated hard mask layer and the material layer. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that Chang discloses all limitations of claim 1 except for
3 The Examiner does not rely on any references in rejecting the other claims
that remedy the defect in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13.
3
Appeal 2016-007406
Application 13/157,179
the annealing of the treated hard mask. Id. The Examiner finds that Sung
discloses annealing a treated hard mask layer. Id. at 4.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
method of Chang and incorporate annealing of Chang’s treated hard mask
layer to harden the hard mask layer, activate implanted ions, or initiate
reaction between layers. Id.', see also Advis. Act. 2 (“[AJnnealing the
treated hard mask layer would provide a hardened] mask layer.”).
Appellants argue that Chang seeks to avoid introducing dopants into
the underlying polysilicon layer from the amorphous carbon layer. Appeal
Br. 8 (citing Chang col. 3,11. 19-22). Appellants argue that one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that
annealing would cause diffusion of the dopants from the implanted depth
into the underlying semiconductor layers, and that Chang therefore teaches
away from annealing a doped hard mask. Id. at 6. Appellants also argue
that Chang teaches dopants change the etch selectivity of a material. Id. at 7
(citing Chang col. 3,11. 11—14). Appellants contend that one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would understand from
Chang that changing the dopant profile would alter the outcome of Chang,
making it unsuitably for its intended purpose. Id. at 7—8. Appellants further
contend that Chang teaches away from annealing the doped hard mask of
Chang in order to prevent diffusion of the dopants, which would change the
dopant profile of the underlying semiconductor materials. Appellants
further argue that the Examiner provides no rational basis for modifying
Chang in the manner set forth in the Final Action. Id. at 8.
4
Appeal 2016-007406
Application 13/157,179
“The presence or absence of a motivation to combine references in an
obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.” In re Gartside, 203
F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here, the Examiner provides no reason or
rationale why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have applied annealing in the process of Chang. The Examiner does
not establish that hardening of the hard mask layer of Chang is in any way
desirable or necessary. Nor does the Examiner address Appellants’
arguments regarding the consequences of adding annealing to Chang’s
process. Sung employs the process of annealing to anneal a metal layer to
be able to react with silicon to form silicide. Sung 121. The reason for
annealing in Sung is not applicable to the teachings in Chang. The
Examiner fails to illuminate why a skilled artisan would have selected the
combination of Chang and Sung and reasonably expected success. On this
record, the Examiner does not make a prima facie case of obviousness.
The Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over
Chang in view of Sung. The other pending claims, including independent
claim 13, all require the same combination of references for the same
purpose. As none of the additional references cited against other pending
claims remedy the deficiency of the combination of Chang and Sung, the
Examiner also reversibly erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 5—18, and 21.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5—18,
and 21 is reversed.
REVERSED
5