Ex Parte Leiphart

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2007

09785858 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHANE P. LEIPHART
____________

Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: May 30, 2007
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 35-39, 41-48, and 75, the only claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858

INTRODUCTION
Appellant invented a method of forming an aluminum comprising line
having a titanium nitride layer thereon by using physical vapor deposition
(PVD) (claim 35, Specification 3, ll. 18-20). The method includes
physically vapor depositing a first layer of aluminum or aluminum alloy
over an insulating layer on a substrate such that the outermost portion of the
aluminum or aluminum alloy is deposited at a temperature of at least 400°C
(claim 35). The insulating layer has a hole that is filled by the aluminum or
aluminum alloy (claim 35). The outermost portion of the aluminum or
aluminum alloy is maintained at a temperature of at least 360°C between the
depositing of the aluminum or aluminum alloy layer and the depositing of
the titanium on the first layer (claim 35). A titanium layer is deposited atop
the aluminum or aluminum alloy layer while the outer portion is at a
temperature of at least 360°C (claim 35). The titanium layer and the
aluminum layer react to form a titanium-aluminum alloy layer (claim 35,
Specification 9, ll. 1-6). A titanium nitride layer is coated atop the titanium-
aluminum alloy and photopatterning the layered structure to form the
aluminum comprising line (claim 35).
Claim 35 is illustrative:
35. A method of forming an aluminum comprising line having a
titanium nitride comprising layer thereon, the method comprising:

providing a substrate having an opening extending through an
insulating layer to a diffusion region;

in a processing tool, physical vapor depositing a first layer comprising
at least one of elemental aluminum or an aluminum alloy over the substrate
in a first chamber, the first layer being formed over the insulating layer and
filling the opening, at least an outermost portion of the first layer being
deposited at a first deposition temperature of at least 400ºC;
2
Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858

physical vapor depositing a titanium alloy on the first layer in a
second chamber of the processing tool while at least an outer portion of the
first layer is at a temperature of at least about 360ºC, and forming therefrom
a second layer comprising an alloy of titanium and the aluminum from the
first layer in the second chamber during said depositing, the alloy having a
higher melting point than that of the first layer, and wherein essentially all
the physical vapor deposited titanium alloys with the aluminum of the first
layer during the depositing, the outermost portion of the first layer sustaining
a temperature of at least 360ºC between the depositing the first layer and the
depositing the titanium alloy on the first layer;

physical vapor depositing a third layer comprising titanium nitride on
the second layer;

removing the substrate from the processing tool after depositing the
third layer; and

photopatterning the first, second and third layers into a conductive
line over a contacting plug within the opening and in electrical connection
with the diffusion region.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Besser US 5,582,881 Dec. 10, 1996
Marieb US 5,909,635 Jun. 1, 1999
Colgan US 5,925,933 Jul. 20, 1999
Shan US 6,140,228 Oct. 31, 2000

The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
1. Claims 35-39, 41-48, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Besser in view of Shan, Marieb and Colgan.1

1 Appellant’s listing of the “Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on
Appeal” omits claims 46-48 from the § 103(a) rejection over Besser in view
of Shan, Marieb and Colgan. However, since Appellant indicates that
claims 35-39, 41-48, and 75 are “the basis for the present appeal” (Br. 3),
and Appellant references claims 41-48 as dependent claims in the
3
Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858

Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant
and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief, and
to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof.

OPINION
Appellant argues at pages 8 to 13 of the Brief the following five
features of claim 35 with respect to Besser, Shan, Colgan, or Marieb: (1)
“providing a substrate having an opening extending through an insulating
layer to a diffusion region,” (claim 35) (2) an “aluminum or an aluminum
alloy . . . filling the opening [in the insulating layer],” (claim 35) (3) “at least
an outermost portion of the first layer [i.e., the aluminum or aluminum alloy
layer] being deposited at a first deposition temperature of at least 400°C,”
(claim 35) (4) “the outermost portion of the first layer [i.e., the aluminum or
aluminum alloy] sustaining a temperature of at least 360°C between the
depositing of the first layer and the depositing of the titanium alloy on the
first layer,” (claim 35) and (5) “photopatterning the first, second and third
layers into a conductive line” (claim 35) (Br. 8-13).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and are unpersuaded
by them for the reasons below.
In view of the Examiner’s thorough explanation of the reasoning
“why, as a whole, the prior art [of the § 103] rejection would [have]
reasonably . . . [led] one ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed
invention” (Answer 18-24), which addresses and successfully rebuts each of
“Argument” section of the Brief (Br. 8 and 13), it is apparent that Appellant
recognizes claims 41-48 are included in the rejection on appeal.
4
Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858

Appellant’s arguments directed to the claim features noted above, we adopt
the Examiner’s reasoning as our own. We add the following discussion to
address an additional issue raised by Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant improperly attacks each of the references individually,
instead of addressing the Examiner’s rejection based upon the combination
of references. Evidence that Appellant has improperly attacked the
references individually is found in Appellant’s arguments that a particular
reference fails to disclose a claim feature which is different than the claim
feature the Examiner relied on the reference to show. An applicant cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981).
For example, Appellant indicates that the Examiner relies on Colgan
as “suggesting photopatterning of layers” (Br. 9). However, instead of
properly arguing the combination of Colgan’s photopatterning with the
method of forming an aluminum line of Besser in view of Shan and Marieb,
Appellant improperly attacks the Colgan patent individually and argues that
Colgan does not suggest “formation of a first layer comprising aluminum
over an insulating layer and filling an opening which extends through the
insulating layer” (i.e., Appellant argues claim features (1) and (2) instead of
claim feature (5), which the Examiner relied on Colgan to disclose as part of
the combination) (Br. 9).
From the foregoing, Appellant has not successfully carried his burden
of rebutting the Examiner’s prima facie case. In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361,
1366, 76 USPQ2d 1048, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining, once the
Examiner has established a prima facie case, the burden falls on Appellant to
5
Appeal 2006-2353
Application 09/785,858

rebut the prima facie case). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s §
103(a) rejection of argued claim 35 and non-argued claims 36-39, 41-48, and
75.
DECISION
We sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 35-39, 41-48, and 75 over
Besser in view of Shan, Marieb, and Colgan.
The Examiner’s decision 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).

AFFIRMED

sld/ls

Wells St. John P.S.
601 W. First Avenue, Suite 1300
Spokane, WA 99201
6