Ex Parte Kolics

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 1, 2016

13681332 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/681,332 11/19/2012
119049 7590 08/03/2016
MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp.
Albert Penilla
710 Lakeway Drive
Suite 200
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Artur Kolics
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LAM2P668.DIV 6312
EXAMINER
BAREFORD, KATHERINE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/03/2016 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):
lamptomail@mpiplaw.com
mpdocket@mpiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AR TUR KO LI CS
Appeal2014-006556
Application 13/681,332
Technology Center 1700
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MARK NAGUMO, and
CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Applicant (hereinafter the "Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from a final decision of the Primary Examiner to reject claims 1-
24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The Appellant states that the real party in interest is "Lam Research
Corporation" (Appeal Brief filed December 31, 2013, hereinafter "Appeal
Br.," 3).
2 Appeal Br. 3; Examiner's Answer entered March 10, 2014, hereinafter
"Ans.," 2; Final Office Action entered August 13, 2013, hereinafter "Final
Act.," 3-23.
Appeal2014-006556
Application 13/681,332
BACKGROl.J1'-JD
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method of electroless
deposition of cap layers used for fabricating electronic devices, wherein the
method includes controlling the composition of the electro less deposition
bath (Specification, hereinafter "Spec.," i-fi-16-7; Abst.). Representative
claim 1, with key limitations shown in italicized text, is reproduced from the
Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A method of electroless deposition of cap layers
containing a metal on a substrate having copper and dielectric
structures, the method comprising:
(i) exposing the substrate to an electroless deposition
solution to deposit the cap layers on the substrate, the
electroless deposition solution having reactants for an
electroless deposition reaction to deposit the cap layers and
having byproducts for the electroless deposition reaction,
wherein the electroless deposition solution comprises an
amount of an amine identified as a byproduct of the electro less
deposition reaction, wherein the amine comprises a
dimethylamine at a concentration of about 0.01 gram moles
per liter, and an amount of a phosphite identified as a
byproduct of the electroless deposition reaction, wherein the
phosphite concentration is about 0. OJ gram moles per liter; and
(ii) replenishing the electroless deposition solution by
adding calculated effective amounts of one or more reactants
and calculated effective amounts of one or more byproducts so
that cap layers can be deposited on additional substrates with
the electroless deposition solution having substantially the
same properties as in (i).
Claims 11 and 21, the only other independent claims on appeal, recite
steps involving the addition of a replenishing composition including, inter
alia, dimethylamine and phosphite at specific concentrations (Appeal Br. 15,
16-17).
2
Appeal2014-006556
Application 13/681,332
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Valverde et al. 3 (hereinafter "Valverde") in view of Gulla et al. 4
(hereinafter "Gulla"), Matsui et al. 5 (hereinafter "JP '448"), and Chiba et al.
(hereinafter "Chiba"). 6 (Ans. 2-17; Final Act. 3-23.)
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Valverde describes a method of electroless
deposition of cap layers using an electroless deposition solution including
reactants such as dimethyl amine borane (DMAB) and hypophosphite
reducing agents, which react with metal on the substrate to form, inter alia,
dimethylamine and phosphite byproducts (Final Act. 4). The Examiner
ascertained the differences between scope and content of Valverde' s
disclosure and the subject matter of claim 1, as follows (id.):
Valverde does not teach the specific amount of byproduct
phosphite and dimethyl amine present in the deposition
solution, or replenishing the electroless deposition solution by
adding calculated effective amounts of one or more reactants
and calculated effective amounts of one or more by products so
that cap layers can be deposited on additional substrates with
the electroless deposition solution having substantially the same
properties as the first plating.
The Examiner found further, however, that Gulla teaches that reactants in an
electroless deposition solution are consumed over time, thereby resulting in
3 US 2006/0083850 Al published April 20, 2006.
4 US 4,152,164 issued May 1, 1979.
5 JP P2001-49448 A published February 20, 2001. We refer to the machine-
generated English language translation dated March 4, 2013, as found in the
electronic record.
6 US 2003/0049169 Al published March 13, 2003.
3
Appeal2014-006556
Application 13/681,332
the accumulation of byproducts, and that it is well-known to replenish
reactants based on calculations and to remove materials from the solution to
prevent an over build-up of byproducts, thus allowing the solution to be used
indefinitely (id. at 5). The Examiner made similar findings with respect to
JP '448's teachings (id.). In addition, the Examiner found that "it is desired
to analyze and control operating conditions for such baths, including
electroless nickel, electroless nickel cobalt, electroless cobalt, with reducing
agents such as hypophosphite and dimethyl amine bor[an]e, where nickel ion
amount can be controlled for example, and phosphite in the bath from
reaction of hypophosphite reducing agent can be controlled ... . "(id. at 6).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art .
. . to modify Valverde to further remove materials from the
plating bath and to provide calculated effective replenishment
of materials from the plating bath, including of byproducts as
suggested by Gulla and [JP] '448 in order to provide desirable
long use of the plating bath ....
(id.). According to the Examiner (id. at 7), "it would have been obvious ...
to optimize the amount of resultant byproduct of at least phosphite
maintained in the bath to give the claimed amount as suggested by Gulla,
[JP] '448 and Chiba with an expectation of providing the optimum plating
conditions for the specific bath used .... " The Examiner made similar
conclusions for the other two independent claims-i.e., claims 11 and 21 (id.
at 13-14, 17-18).
We agree with the Appellant that the Examiner's rejection is not well-
founded (Appeal Br. 5-10). As discussed above, the Examiner found that
Valverde does not describe adding the same replenishing composition, as
specified in claims 1, 11, and 21, but relied on Gulla, JP '448, and Chiba to
4
Appeal2014-006556
Application 13/681,332
support a conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
been prompted to add "calculated effective amounts of one or more
byproducts" (claim 1) or specific concentrations of dimethyl amine and
phosphite (claims 11 and 21) as part of a replenishing composition in
Valverde (Final Act. 6-8, 13-14, 17-18). These references, however, are
insufficient to support the Examiner's conclusion.
Gulla teaches that phosphite and dimethyl amine are formed as
byproducts of the reaction between metal and hypophosphite or amine
borane reducing agents present in the electroless deposition solution,
respectively (col. 1, 11. 22---65; col. 3, 11. 1-8). Gulla teaches that because,
e.g., reducing agents are consumed, "compositional alterations eventually
cause change in the quality and uniformity of a metal plate as well as in
plating rate" and that replenishment of bath constituents such as metal salts,
reducing agents, pH adjusters, complexing agents, stabilizers, and the like is
"needed to compensate for losses due to drag-out, consumption, and the
like" (col. 1, 1. 67---col. 2, 1. 24). As pointed out by the Appellant (Appeal
Br. 6), however, Gulla does not identify any of the byproducts as one of the
replenishers (col. 3, 11. 1-8, 17-20). Indeed, Gulla suggests removal-not
addition---of the byproducts by stating that "if by-products were permitted to
increase in concentration without removal, their concentration would reach a
level where the plating solution would no longer be suitable for use within
about 3 to 10 plating cycles, dependent upon the work plated" (col. 4, 11. 47-
66).
JP '448 teaches providing an initial deposition solution including,
inter alia, 0.2-2.5 mol/L of phosphite and maintaining the constituent
concentrations at the initial levels (Abst.; i-fi-f 13-15). But as pointed out by
5
Appeal2014-006556
Application 13/681,332
the Appellant (Appeal Br. 6; Reply Brief filed ivfay 12, 2014 at 2), JP '448
teaches significantly higher concentration levels of phosphite compared to
that recited in claim 1 ("about 0.01 gram moles per liter") (i-f 13). Moreover,
even assuming that JP '448 would have suggested adding phosphite as part
of a replenishing composition, the relied-upon evidence is insufficient to
establish that an optimum or workable replenishment composition would be
formulated to contain the phosphite concentrations recited in claims 11 and
21. That is, although claims 11 and 21 do not specify an initial phosphite
concentration, we agree with the Appellant (Appeal Br. 9) that the
Examiner's obviousness analysis based on optimization by routine
experimentation is flawed because the Examiner failed to demonstrate that
routine optimization would inevitably result in the phosphite concentrations
recited in the replenishing steps of claims 11 and 21.
Finally, we also find that Chiba is insufficient to bridge the gap
between the claimed subject matter and the collective teachings of the other
references. As the Appellant correctly notes (Appeal Br. 7), Chiba teaches
merely that "a phosphite such as sodium phosphite formed by oxidation of
the hypophosphite attendant on the progress of plating is accumulated in a
wide range of 0 to 300 g/L, particularly 0 to 200 g/L" (Chiba i1 50)
(emphasis added). Even when combined with the other references such as
JP '448, Chiba's teachings are insufficient to support a conclusion that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have added phosphite as part of a
replenishing composition, as opposed to merely limiting the accumulation
thereof.
For these reasons, we cannot uphold the Examiner's rejection.
6
Appeal2014-006556
Application 13/681,332
survnvIARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24 is reversed.
REVERSED
7