Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

13185793 (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.
13/185,793 07/19/2011 Sang In LEE 27276-18707 3030
758 7590 09/01/2017
FF.NWTPK fr WF.ST T T P
EXAMINER
SILICON VALLEY CENTER TUROCY, DAVID P
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
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):
PTOC @Fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG IN LEE
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,7931
Technology Center 1700
Before DONNA M. PRAISS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the maintained
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 3-8, 21, 22, and 24-30. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the owner of the subject patent application, Veeco
ALD Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
THE INVENTION
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to a method of
depositing layers of material on a substrate using atomic layer deposition
(ALD) followed by surface treating the substrate with radicals of inert gas
before subjecting the substrate to further deposition. Specification filed July
19,2011 (“Spec.”), Abstract.
Claim 1—the sole independent claim— is representative.
1. A method of depositing one or more layers of material on
a substrate, comprising:
exposing a portion of a surface of the substrate to a first
material;
exposing the portion of the surface of the substrate to a second
material after exposing to the first material;
generating radicals in a chamber formed in an injector separated
from the substrate by at least a predetermined distance,
the radicals comprising at least one of Ar* radicals, H*
radicals or N* radicals;
moving the generated radicals into an injection cavity formed in
the injector and connected to the chamber;
exposing the portion of the substrate to the radicals in the
injection cavity dimensioned to cause the radicals to flow
over the portion of the substrate in the injection cavity
and treat the portion of the surface of the substrate to
have dangling bonds, after exposing the portion of the
surface of the substrate to the first material and the
second material;
moving the radicals from the injectors to a constriction zone
connected to the injection cavity, at least part of the
radicals reverted to first gas of an inert state while
moving the radicals to and through the constriction zone;
removing excess second material from the surface of the
substrate by passing at least the first gas reverted from
the radicals through the constriction zone dimensioned to
2
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
constrict flow of the first gas over the surface of the
substrate along a distance, the distance configured to
remove an excess second material from the portion of the
substrate, a concentration of the first gas relative to the
radicals in the constriction zone higher than a
concentration of the first gas relative to the radicals in the
injection cavity; and
exposing the treated surface of the substrate to a third material
after exposing the portion of the substrate to the radicals.
Appeal Brief filed January 12, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), 20-21 (Claims App’x).
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
Claims 1, 3-7, 21, 22, and 24-30 over Lim2 in view of Sferlazzo,3
Kumar,4 and Oh,5 as evidenced by Foster6 and Dickey7;
Claims 1, 3-7, 21, 22, 24-308 over Lim in view of Sferlazzo, Kumar,
Oh, and Dickey;
Claim 8 over Lim in view of Sferlazzo, Kumar, Sferlazzo ’055,9 and
Oh, with or without Dickey; and
Claim 24 over Lim in view of Sferlazzo, Kumar, Chiang,10 and Oh,
with or without Dickey.
2 Lim et al., WO 2006/054854 Al, published May 26, 2006.
3 Sferlazzo, US 2010/0221426 Al, published September 2, 2010.
4 Kumar et al., US 2010/0048029 Al, published February 25, 2010.
5 Oh, US 2009/0165715 Al, published July 2, 2009.
6 Foster et al., US 5,567,243, issued October 22, 1996.
7 Dickey et al., US 2008/0026162 Al, published January 31, 2008.
8 The caption inadvertently includes previously canceled claim 23. Ans. 2.
9 Sferlazzo, US 6,972,055 B2, issued December 6, 2005.
10 Chiang et al., US 6,416,822 Bl, issued July 9, 2002.
3
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
DISCUSSION11
We have reviewed the grounds of rejection set forth by the Examiner,
Appellant’s arguments, and the Examiner’s response. On this record, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time of the invention, armed with the knowledge of the
cited prior art, would have been led to the subject matter of the claims within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner relies on Lim for its disclosure of an atomic layer
deposition (ALD) method for depositing one or more layers on the substrate
including, inter alia, generating radicals of inert gas, the radicals comprising
at least one of Ar radicals or N radicals, moving the radicals from the
injection chamber towards the substrate via an injection cavity connected to
the chamber, and exposing the surface of the substrate to radicals of inert gas
to treat the surface. Ans. 2-3 (citing Lim Fig. 1). The Examiner further
finds Lim’s Figure 1 to disclose ion exposure and exhausting to purge at the
same time and reasons that “since inert gas ions will revert to an inert state”
the requirement that “at least part of the radicals [have] reverted to first gas
of an inert state” is met. Ans. 3 (citing Dickey ^ 21 and Foster cols. 8-9 as
evidence that radicals formed of inert gas will recombine into inert gas
before escaping the precursor chamber or adjoining passageway).
The Examiner relies on Sferlazzo for its disclosure of an ALD
method, which includes “sequentially moving a substrate underneath a
11 In this discussion, we refer to the Specification, the Non-Final Office
Action dated September 2, 2015 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s Answer dated July 1, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
August 18, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
4
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
delivery head that includes injectors in sequence, separated by exhausts,
wherein each of the flows of gases are transferred across the substrate
surface through a constriction zone.” Ans. 4 (citing Fig. 1). The Examiner
further finds the injector in Sferlazzo to be separated from the substrate by a
predetermined distance and the injection cavity to be connected to a
constriction zone. Ans. 4. In so finding, the Examiner is maintaining that
the regions—low gas conductance passages—formed under baffles
separating the reaction chambers, e.g., 110, from vacuum chambers, e.g.,
108, 112, to remove gas, are constriction zones within the meaning of the
claims.
The Examiner relies on Kumar for its disclosure of an ALD apparatus
with a plasma chamber remote from the substrate for generating radicals,
including radicals of argon, nitrogen, and hydrogen, for treatment of the
ALD film. Ans. 5.
As to the reformed gas flowing through the constriction zone
removing excess material form the surface of the substrate, the Examiner
finds that the reformed gas flowing through these constriction zones would
inherently remove excess material from the surface of the substrate. Non-
Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 4-6, 14-15. The Examiner further maintains that there
is no factual evidence that the disclosed constriction zones would not result
in the removal of second material and no basis in the Specification that a
specific degree of constriction is required, and that, accordingly, “any degree
of constriction over any length will necessarily result in removal of excess
material as claimed.” Appeal Br. 14-16.
Explaining that the instant invention takes advantage of the Venturi
effect that allows the flow rate of constricted gas flowing through the
5
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
constriction zone to be significantly increased, Appellant contends that none
of the references discloses a constriction zone dimensioned to constrict the
flow of the gas such that it removes excess material from the surface of the
substrate. Appeal Br. 6-12. Appellant’s argument focuses on the disclosed
purpose of the constriction zone. As to Sferlazzo’s baffle structure,
Appellant cites the disclosed purpose of isolating the chambers to maintain a
desired local pressure inside chambers and that, in accomplishing this
purpose, the baffles can be different and/or have different gaps. Appeal
Br. 9 (citing Sferlazzo ^ 39). Appellant contends that Sferlazzo fails to
“address or contemplate the concept of enabling leaking or passing of the
materials through the baffles with a specific structure to remove excess
materials from the substrate” and argue, accordingly, that “Sferlazzo does
not disclose or suggest the feature of ‘through the constriction zone
dimensioned to constrict flow of the first gas over the surface of the
substrate along a distance, the distance configured to remove an excess
second material from the portion of the substrate.’” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant further argues that “it is unclear from . . . Sferlazzo whether
precursor material flowing under the baffles [] would result in removal or
additional deposition of precursor material” and that “Sferlazzo would not
require separate purge gas chambers” if Sferlazzo’s baffles “caused removal
of excess second material.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of reversible error because it
fails to address the rejection grounded on the process of Lim using chambers
having the structure of Sferlazzo’s, i.e., chambers defined by baffles
allowing constricted flow, and on the finding that the relied on structure
would inherently function to remove excess second material from the
6
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
portion of the substrate. Appellant directs us to no evidence or persuasive
argument to rebut the Examiner’s determination that the relied on baffles
would function as a constriction zone allowing the passage of gas, that the
velocity of the gas through this zone would be increased by the constriction,
and that this increased velocity flow of gas would necessarily function to
remove a portion of the substrate. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br.
Appellant’s further argument grounded on potential deposition of
precursor material flowing under baffles and the requirement in Sferlazzo
for separate purge chambers is unpersuasive because it fails to address the
rejection set forth by the Examiner in which Lim’s process is conducted
using chambers with baffles, not Sferlazzo’s process. Cf. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness ... is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”); see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Each reference cited by the Examiner “must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole.”).
Appellant further contends that even if the dimensions of baffles in
Sferlazzo could be configured to remove excess material, doing so would
not be obvious because Sferlazzo (and Oh) teach away. Appeal Br. 13
(citing Sferlazzo ^ 39, for maintaining the pressure of materials in the
chambers, and Oh 55, for deterring radicals from leaking outside the
injection unit). Appellant argues “Sferlazzo and Oh each teach containment
of material inside chambers of the reactors.” Appeal Br. 13.
On this record, we are not persuaded there is a teaching away. We
find no support in Sferlazzo as it discloses flow underneath the baffles.
7
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
Sferlazzo ^ 39, Fig. 1; see also Ans. 16-17. Likewise, we find no support in
Oh’s paragraph 55 because neither the teaching to avoid mixing of injection
materials, which is not implicated in the present combination, nor the
teaching to increase efficiency of precursors reasonably leads the skilled
artisan away from the invention. DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co.
Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a process where no
such language exists.”). “A reference does not teach away ... if it merely
expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention
claimed.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d
1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201
(Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection relies on
impermissible hindsight in the combination of Lim, Kumar, Oh, and
Sferlazzo. Appeal Br. 13-16. Appellant contends that the Examiner has
asserted a first feature that can be met by a combination of teachings from
Lim and Sferlazzo OR a combination of teachings from Lim and Oh (e.g.,
Fig. 5) and asserted a second feature that can be met by a combination of
teachings from Lim and Kumar OR a combination of teachings from Lim
and Oh (e.g., ^ 65). Appeal Br. 14-15. Appellant then argues that the
Examiner’s disassembling of Oh into different elements and subsequent
combination of these elements with Lim and Sferlazzo to arrive at the
claimed invention constitutes impermissible hindsight. Appeal Br. 16.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of harmful error, particularly as
the rejection, as set forth above, and as highlighted by Appellant in the
8
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
argument, requires no teaching from Oh. Appellant’s focus, accordingly, on
the Examiner’s reliance on different portions of Oh for its teaching relating
to an exhaust unit and an injection unit, respectively, is of no import. Cf. In
re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966) (citing In re Bush, 296 F.2d
491 (CCPA 1961) (The Board may rely on less than all of the references
applied by the Examiner in an obviousness rationale without designating it
as a new ground.). As to the combination of Fim with Sferlazzo and Kumar,
we discern no cogent argument that the Examiner has failed to properly
articulate a sufficient motivation and so are unpersuaded that the rejection is
grounded on impermissible hindsight. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with
approval in KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Further, “the burden of showing that the error is harmful normally falls upon
the party attacking the agency’s determination,” In re Chapman, 595 F.3d
1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409
(2009), and we find no sufficient basis in Appellant’s argument to establish
harmful error in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant further contends that there is no proper motivation to
combine the cited references because the combination including Oh would
have rendered Oh unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Appeal Br. 16-17
(citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Referring to Oh’s
disclosure, Appellant argues that the combination of injection unit 41 that
relies on guards to prevent leakage of precursor and separate exhaust unit 42
that purges excess reactants from the surface of the substrate would render
9
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
either the deposition of precursor or removal of excess reactants
unsatisfactory. Appeal Br. 16-17 (citing Oh]fl| 35, 55, Figs. 9, 23).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of harmful error, both because
we affirm the rejection without relying on Oh and because we are not
persuaded that the combination including Oh’s teachings as set forth by the
Examiner constitutes an impermissible modification of the prior art. First,
having determined it is unnecessary to rely on Oh, any determination that Oh
is not properly combined does not identify harmful error in the Examiner’s
decision that claim 1 was unpatentable within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the cited prior art. Turning then to Appellant’s argument, even
as it relates to the rejection including Oh, we find it insufficient because it
merely contends that the results would be unsatisfactory, not that it would
have been inoperable. See In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1243 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 587 (1969) (“[I]f references
taken in combination would produce a ‘seemingly inoperative device,’ . . .
such references teach away from the combination and thus cannot serve as
predicates for a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 21, 22,
and 24-30 over Lim in view of Sferlazzo and Kumar.
As to the further rejections, Appellant maintains that the further cited
references—Dickey, Sferlazzo ’055, and Chiang—do not cure the
deficiencies of the rejection grounded on the combination of Lim, Sferlazzo,
Kumar and Oh. Appeal Br. 17-19.
On this record, we are not apprised of reversible error in the further
rejections. Except as to the rejection of claim 8, the Examiner relies on Oh
for no more than in the rejection of claim 1 as discussed above. In rejecting
10
Appeal 2016-007815
Application 13/185,793
claim 8, the Examiner finds “Oh discloses linear processing or rotating
processing” and that “rotation is a known technique for passing a substrate
through sequential treatment.” Ans. 10 (citing Oh ^ 35). The reliance on Oh
is unnecessary in light of the further cited reference—Sferlazzo ’055. Like
Lim and Sferlazzo, Sferlazzo ’055 is directed to ALD and is cited for its
disclosure of a method using smaller chambers and rotating the substrate
around between each chamber using a rotating turntable technique to reap
benefits including increased throughput and deposition quality. Ans. 10
(citing Sferlazzo ’055 col. 3,11. 21-30, col. 4,11. 56-65, Fig. 3). Where the
rejection sets forth that Sferlazzo ’055 itself teaches that the use of rotation
was a known technique, and that it provided benefits of improved
throughput and quality, the reliance on Oh for teaching rotation is a
predictable, known technique that would have motivated the modification is
unnecessary to sustain the ground of rejection. Cf. Boyer, 363 F.2d at 458.
On balance, the evidence of record weighs most heavily in favor of
the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of the claims.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 21, 22, and 24-30 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11