Ex Parte Komeda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2013

11657022 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2013)

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.
11/657,022 01/24/2007 Kenji Komeda 06USFP1508-M.K. 3056
21254 7590 06/28/2013
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
TSAI, H JEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2895
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2013 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 KENJI KOMEDA
____________

Appeal 2010-009915
Application 11/657,022
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009915
Application 11/657,022

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing claims 1-10 and 12-20. Appeal Brief 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a method of manufacturing a capacitor.
Appeal Brief 2-3.

Illustrative Claim (Emphasis Added)
1. A method of manufacturing a capacitor, comprising:

forming a lower electrode of a capacitor on or above a
semiconductor substrate;

introducing an ozone gas and an inert gas simultaneously
for a predetermined period into a reaction chamber of an atomic
layer deposition apparatus in which said semiconductor
substrate is set;

exhausting said ozone gas from said reaction chamber by
stopping the introduction of said ozone gas and introducing
only said inert gas into said reaction chamber, after said
introducing said ozone gas and said inert gas;

forming a capacitive dielectric film on said lower
electrode by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) method in said
atomic layer deposition apparatus, after said exhausting said
ozone gas from said reaction chamber; and

forming an upper electrode of said capacitor on said
capacitive dielectric film after said capacitive dielectric film is
formed,

wherein said introducing the ozone gas and inert gas
simultaneously is performed after said forming the lower
Appeal 2010-009915
Application 11/657,022

3
electrode and prior to said forming the capacitive dielectric
film on the lower electrode.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10 and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Raaijmakers (U.S. Patent Application Publication
Number 2004/0175586 A1; published September 9, 2004). Answer 3-10.
Claims 2 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raaijmakers, Derderian (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2005/0023584 A1; published February 3, 2005) and
Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0166512 A1;
published July 27, 2006). Answer 10-12.

Issue on Appeal
Does Raaijmakers disclose wherein “introducing the ozone gas and
inert gas simultaneously is performed after said forming the lower electrode
and prior to said forming the capacitive dielectric film on the lower
electrode” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Raaijmakers fail to disclose the invention
because Raaijmakers does not disclose introducing the ozone gas and inert
gas simultaneously after the formation of the capacitor lower electrode and
before the formation of the capacitive dielectric film on the lower electrode.
Appeal Brief 15. The Examiner finds that Raaijmakers discloses:

[F]orming a capacitive dielectric film (104a of cycle 115a,
see fig. 5) on said lower electrode by an atomic layer
Appeal 2010-009915
Application 11/657,022

4
deposition (ALD) method in said atomic layer deposition
apparatus, after said exhausting said ozone gas 108 of
from said reaction chamber; fig. 5, para. 56, 96-124, Note:
In para. 56 discloses after initial termination 102, if
necessary, a first chemistry is then supplied 104 to the
workpiece, hence, the step 104 of cycle 115a in figure 5
can be omitted, therefore, capacitor dielectric is deposited
after exhausting ozone gas 108.

Answer 3-4.
The Examiner explains that:
The difference between the references applied above and
the instant claim(s) is: Raaijmakers et al. teaches at para.
56 discloses after initial termination 102, if necessary, a
first chemistry is then supplied 104 to the workpiece,
hence, the step 104 of cycle 115a in figure 5 can be
omitted, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the process so that capacitor dielectric is deposited
after exhausting ozone gas 108.

Answer 9.
Appellants argue that:
[C]ycle 115 is clearly stated in Raaijmakers as being an
ALD process, not as being preprocess to be performed
before an ALD process (e.g., see Raaijmakers paragraph
63). Raaijmakers here also explicitly states that the
termination step 102 is an optional step in the process and
notes that the dotted lines in Figures 4 represent the
optional step (e.g., see Raaijmakers paragraph 63).
Therefore, it is clear the Examiner is misrepresenting the
teachings of the ALD process of Raaijmakers.

Appeal Brief 20-21.
We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Reviewing
Raaijmakers, one can determine, in spite of Raaijmakers’ apparent
Appeal 2010-009915
Application 11/657,022

5
ambiguity in paragraph [0056], that it is actually step 102, not step
104 that is optional. This is supported by Raaijmakers’ Figure 4A
where the lines associated with step 102 are dotted while step 104’s
lines are solid thus indicating that step 102 is optional. Further, in
the preceding paragraph [0055] Raaijmakers discloses, “If
necessary, the exposed surfaces of the bottom electrode (e.g., the
HSG silicon of the preferred embodiments) are terminated 102 to
react with the first phase of the ALD process.” Rejections based on
35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from
the prior art. The Examiner may not, because of doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumption
or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual
basis for the rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
Therefore the Examiner’s premise that it would have been
obvious to modify Raaijmakers based upon step 104’s optionality is
not supported by Raaijmakers because Raaijmakers discloses that it
is actually step 102 that is optional and not step 104. See
Raaijmakers [0055-56]. Therefore we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as, independent claims 12
and 13, for the same reasons stated above. The rejections of
dependent claims 2-10 and 14-20 are reversed as well for reasons
stated above.

Appeal 2010-009915
Application 11/657,022

6
DECISION
The obviousness rejections of claims 1-10 and 12-20 are reversed.

REVERSED

Vsh