Ex Parte Joshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

11218111 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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.
11/218,111 09/01/2005 Pooran Chandra Joshi SLA0988 9283
55286 7590 11/01/2012
SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC.
C/O LAW OFFICE OF GERALD MALISZEWSKI
P.O. BOX 270829
SAN DIEGO, CA 92198-2829
EXAMINER
BLUM, DAVID S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2813
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2012 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 POORAN CHANDRA JOSHI,
APOSTOLOS T. VOUTSAS, and JOHN W. HARTZELL
____________________

Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14-15, and 23-24. Claims 2-6, 10, 12-13, and
16-22 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
The Invention
Appellants invention is directed to a high density plasma grown
silicon nitride which generally relates to integrated circuit (IC) and liquid
crystal display (LCD) fabrication and, more particularly, to high density
plasma (HDP) nitration and HDP silicon nitride growth processes. (Spec. p.
1 (Title), and p. 1, ll. 18-10 (“Field of the Invention”)).
Exemplary Claims
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed limitations):
1. A method for forming a silicon nitride (SiNx) film,
the method comprising:
providing a substrate of silicon;
maintaining a substrate temperature of less than 350
degrees C;
supplying an atmosphere of helium and nitrogen, with a
nitrogen dilution of less than about 20%, and including no
silicon source gas;
performing a high-density (HD) nitrogen plasma
process using an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source as
follows:
supplying power to a top electrode at a frequency in the
range of about 13.56 to 300 megahertz (MHz), and a power
density of up to about 10 watts per square centimeter (W/cm2);

1 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Nov. 21, 2009); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 17, 2010); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 17, 2010); Final Office Action (“FOA,” mailed
Sep. 22, 2009); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sep. 1, 2005).
Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

3
supplying power to a bottom electrode at a frequency in
the range of about 50 kilohertz to 13.56 MHz, and a power
density of up to about 3 W/cm2;
supplying an atmosphere pressure in the range of about 1
to 500 mTorr; and,
processing in the range of about 0 to 120 minutes; and,
growing a layer of SiNx from the substrate.

Claim 15 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the
invention which is reproduced below (emphasis added to disputed
limitations):
15. A method for enhancing the nitrogen (N) content
in a silicon nitride (SiNx) film, the method comprising:
providing a substrate;
maintaining a substrate temperature of less than 350
degrees C;
depositing a SiNx layer overlying the substrate;
supplying an atmosphere with a nitrogen source gas with
a dilution of about less than 20%, and including no silicon
source gas;
performing a high·density (HD) nitrogen plasma process;
and,
in response to the HD nitrogen plasma process,
enhancing the ratio of N to Si in the SiNx layer.

Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Li US 6,368,988 B1 Apr. 9, 2002
Omi US 2004/0121539 A1 Jun. 24, 2004 (filed Dec. 11, 2003)

Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

4
Rejections on Appeal
1. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being
anticipated by Omi. (Ans. 5).
2. Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Omi in view of Li. (Ans. 6.)
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellants’ arguments against the final rejections (App.
Br. 8-16; Reply Br. 2-5), we select the following representative claims to
decide this appeal in accordance with those arguments and rejections:
Claim 1: Claims 7-9, 11, 14, and 23-24, not separately argued,
stand or fall together with independent claim 1.
Claim 15: Claim 15 is separately argued.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
1. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claim 15
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that claim 15 recites that the SiNx layer is
deposited, and not grown, and that Omi discloses a process for growing
silicon nitride from a Si substrate, using various nitrogen gases. (App. Br.
8).
Appellants further contend that “[t]he claimed invention clearly
recites the deposition of SiNx.” (App. Br. 9).
Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

5
Further in this regard, and with reference to Appellants’ FIG. 6 and
Specification, Appellants state that “[s]tep 604 deposits a SiNx layer
overlying the substrate using a conventional process . . . [and] recites that an
HDP nitrogen process is performed on the deposited SiNx.” (App. Br. 5).
In addition, Appellants contend that “[s]tep 604 of Fig. 6 states that
the SiNx film is deposited using ‘a conventional process’ (specification:
page 13, ln. 23-24).” (Reply Br. 2).
Finally, Appellants contend that “claim 15 merely states that the SiNx
film is deposited . . . [and] does not recite the use, or non-use, of any
particular source gases.” (Reply Br. 3) (Emphasis omitted).
Issue 1
Did the Examiner err in finding that Omi discloses all the limitations
of claim 15, particularly that Omi discloses “depositing a SiNx layer
overlying the substrate . . . [and] enhancing the ratio of N to Si in the SiNx
layer,” as recited in independent claim 15?
Analysis
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claim 15, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 5) in response to Appellants’ Arguments
Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

6
(App. Br. 8-10). However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 15 for emphasis as follows.
In particular, we concur with the Examiner’s ultimate findings that
Omi discloses “depositing a SiNx layer.” However, we find that Appellants’
arguments contrasting deposition and growth processes (as it relates to such
a layer) are not persuasive. Specifically, Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s citation of Omi growing a SiNx layer (Ans. 5, citing Omi at ¶
[0036]) is in error and that instead, “Omi describes a process that forms a
SiNx film by growing nitrogen from a Si film.” (Reply Br. 3). In
contradiction to Appellants’ arguments, we point out that Omi actually
discloses depositing SiNx, specifically, chemical vapor deposition (CVD) of
SiNx. (See Omi at ¶ [0018]). Further, Appellants admit in their briefs that
such a depositing step, as recited in claim 15, is conventionally known.
(App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 2).
In addition, we agree with the Examiner that Omi discloses
“enhancing the ratio of N to Si in the SiNx layer,” by disclosing adding
nitrogen to the substrate without a silicon source gas, and increasing the
nitrogen peak by changing the flow ratio of the nitrogen gas during
formation of the insulating film. (See Ans. 10, citing to Omi ¶ [0039]).
Accordingly, Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s findings and claim construction such that we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

7
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14, and 23-24
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Li teaches:
[A] process that deposits either Si3N4 or SiO2 as cap and
sidewall spacers using an HDPCVD system (col. 4, ln. 11-24),
with a typical frequency of 13.56 megahertz (col. 4, ln. 44).
The deposition process for either type of material requires the
use of a silicon source gas, preferably silane (SiH4), col. 5, ln.
12-23. Li does not disclose any process parameters for growing
silicon nitride.
App. Br. 11. (Emphasis in original)
Appellants further contend that “Li does not disclose a process able to
grow a SiNx film from a Si substrate . . . [or, alternatively stated] a silicon
nitride deposition process using a Si source gas is different than a SiNx
growth process where no Si source gas is used.” (App. Br. 12).
In addition, Appellants contend that “ICP process details [in Li] do
not necessarily carry over to a microwave process that uses a different
frequency band,” and that “process details for depositing a silicon nitride
film (Li) do not necessarily carry over to processes for growing a silicon
nitride film (Omi). (App. Br. 14). (Emphasis in original).
Finally, Appellants contend that:
Li only discloses processes for depositing a silicon-
containing film . . . [and] all of Li’s processes support the use of
silicon source gas . . . [such that a] modified version of Li’s
process that eliminates the use of a silicon source gas could not
Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

8
necessarily be obtained as a result of routine experimentation,
as the silicon source gas is key to Li’s process.
App. Br. 14.
Issue 2
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Omi with Li
teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, particularly the limitation
“performing a high-density (HD) nitrogen plasma process using an
inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source . . .,” as recited in independent
claim 1, and did the Examiner set forth a rational basis for combining Omi
with Li in the manner suggested? (Emphasis added).
Analysis
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 6-7, 11-13) in response to Appellants’
Arguments (App. Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 4-5). However, we highlight and
address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as
follows.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Omi combined with Li
teaches or suggests “performing a high-density (HD) nitrogen plasma
process using an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source,” as recited in
Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

9
independent claim 1. In addition, we find that the Examiner has set forth a
rational basis for combining the references in the manner suggested.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments (see
contentions, above) that ICP process details do not necessarily carry over to
a microwave process that uses a different frequency band are not persuasive
because the statement “do not necessarily carry over” clearly leaves open the
possibility that the process details could be relevant in this context. In
addition, we find that Appellants’ argument that process details for
depositing a silicon nitride film “do not necessarily carry over” to processes
for growing a silicon nitride film are also unpersuasive for the same reason.
Appellants have not presented any evidence to rebut the Examiner’s
findings.
In further agreement with the Examiner’s findings, we note that Li is
relied upon by the Examiner as merely teaching the recited electrode
coupling by Li’s use of an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source. (Ans.
11). Omi is relied upon for its teaching of growing a SiNx layer from the
substrate, as well as all of the recited steps of claim 1, except for the
electrode couplings and the power supply. (Ans. 6, 12). We agree with the
Examiner.
We also agree with the Examiner that “[t]he thickness, temperature,
pressure, gas flow rate, power density, growth rate for growing the silicon
nitride layer are considered to involve routine optimization [which] has been
held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art . . . .” (Ans. 7).
Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

10
Finally, as for Appellants’ arguments concerning the motivation to
combine Omi with Li, we also agree with the Examiner, and find that the
Examiner has provided a rational basis for the stated combination, i.e., that it
would be obvious to modify Omi with Li’s inductive couplings to provide a
common electrical system for plasma and substrate processing. (Ans. 6).
Accordingly, Appellants have not convinced us of any error in the
Examiner’s findings and claim construction such that we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 7-9, 11, 14, and 23-24 which fall
with claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with
respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 15, and the rejection is
sustained.
(2) Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred with
respect to the unpatentability rejection of claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14, and 23-24,
and the rejection is sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 7-9, 11, 14, 15, and
23-24 is affirmed.
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) (2011).

Appeal 2010-006535
Application 11/218,111

11
AFFIRMED

ke