Ex Parte Leusink

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 14, 2011

11092101 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 14, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte GERRIT J. LEUSINK
________________

Appeal 2010-009549
Application 11/092,101
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-12 and 23-26, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellant claims a method for depositing a layer on a substrate.
Claim 1 is illustrative:

Appeal 2010-009549
Application 11/092,101

2

1. A method for depositing a layer on a substrate located in a
deposition system having a process chamber with a light transmissive
window, the method comprising:
placing a solid precursor into a precursor holder within the process
chamber;
forming a precursor vapor in a precursor vaporization zone between
the precursor holder and the light transmissive window by vaporizing the
solid precursor with light transmitted through the light transmissive window;
transporting the precursor vapor from the precursor vaporization zone
to the substrate in the process chamber; and
exposing the substrate in the process chamber to a process gas
containing the precursor vapor to deposit a layer including at least one
element from the precursor vapor on the substrate.

The References
Nath 4,514,437 Apr. 30, 1985
Atwell 5,674,574 Oct. 7, 1997
Eom 5,810,930 Sep. 22, 1998
Loan 6,136,725 Oct. 24, 2000
Dando 2004/0083963 A1 May 6, 2004
Wang 2005/0019026 A1 Jan. 27, 2005
The Rejections
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1,
2, 5-12, and 26 over Dando in view of Nath, claims 1-9, 12, and 26 over
Wang in view of Nath, claims 3 and 4 over Dando in view of Nath and
Wang, claims 10 and 11 over Wang in view of Nath and Dando, claim 23
over Dando or Wang, each in view of Nath and Eom, claim 24 over Dando
or Wang, each in view of Nath and Loan, and claim 25 over Dando or
Wang, each in view of Atwell.

Appeal 2010-009549
Application 11/092,101

3
OPINION
We reverse the rejections. We need to address only the sole
independent claim, i.e., claim 1.1 That claim requires transmitting light
through a process chamber’s light transmissive window to vaporize a solid
precursor in the process chamber, and depositing onto a substrate in the
same process chamber a layer including at least one element from the
precursor vapor.
Rejection over Dando in view of Nath
Dando teaches that “|[s]tandard CVD [chemical vapor deposition] and
ALD [atomic layer deposition] processes employ precursor sources in
vaporization chambers that are separated from the process or reactor
chamber where the deposition surface or wafer is located” (¶ 0004). Dando
delivers vaporized solid or liquid precursor to a CVD or ALD deposition
chamber by exposing the solid or liquid precursor in a vessel (12) to energy
which can be infrared radiation, and transporting the vaporized precursor
through a temperature controlled conduit (32) to a CVD or ALD deposition
chamber (34) (abstract; ¶¶ 0011, 0017, 0035). Suitable precursors include
organic and inorganic metal-containing compounds (¶ 0014).
Nath, in a single chamber (32), vaporizes a solid precursor by use of
an electron beam (46), activates the vaporized precursor with a plasma,
reacts the plasma-activated precursor vapor with a reactive gas, and deposits
a thin film of the reaction product onto a substrate (11) (col. 6, l. 67 – col. 7,
l. 24; Fig. 2). Nath teaches that “electron beam heating may be

1 The Examiner does not rely upon Eom, Loan or Atwell for any disclosure
that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the independent
claim (Ans. 9-10).
Appeal 2010-009549
Application 11/092,101

4
advantageously employed to vaporize high melting point materials” (col. 3,
ll. 8-10) such as indium and tin (col. 12, ll. 22-24).
The Examiner argues that “Nath teaches vaporizing a solid precursor
within the same chamber as the substrate in order to have more control over
the process and have a wide variety of deposition rates (column 1 lines 15-
33)” (Ans. 5).
Nath teaches that “electron beam evaporation is a process which is
easily controlled” (col. 3, ll. 16-17) and that “because of the fine degree of
control available, is quite useful for evaporating a wide variety of low
melting point materials” (col. 3, ll. 21-24). Nath also teaches that radio
frequency activation combined with precursor vaporization using an electron
beam “is specifically adapted to deposit a wide variety of precursor materials
at varying deposition rates” (col. 4, ll. 6-13). Thus, it is the use of an
electron beam to vaporize the precursor and the use of such vaporization
with radio frequency activation, not the use of a single chamber, which Nath
discloses as providing the benefits of control and a wide variety of
deposition rates argued by the Examiner.
The Examiner argues that Nath discloses that vaporizing a solid
precursor in the same chamber as the substrate “is simple to implement and
economical (column 1 lines 33-55)” (Ans. 5),
Those are disclosed benefits of vacuum evaporation techniques, not
benefits resulting from the use of a single chamber (col. 1, ll. 32-35). Nath
also discloses problems with vacuum evaporation techniques (col. 1, ll. 44-
52).
Hence, the Examiner’s argument that “it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dando et al. to include the solid
Appeal 2010-009549
Application 11/092,101

5
precursor vaporization area within the same chamber as the substrate as
taught by Nath in order to have more control over the process, have a wide
variety of deposition rates, and use a technology that is more simple and
economical” (Ans. 5-6) is not well taken.
The Examiner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
placed the substrate in the same chamber as the vaporization because doing
so would provide the benefits of increased control over the process, less area
for the vapor to traverse, avoidance of potential evaporant buildup and
unwanted condensation of the vapor during its travel to the substrate, and
less opportunity for leaks (Ans. 11-13).
That argument is not persuasive because it is based upon mere
speculation. Such speculation is not a sufficient basis for a prima facie case
of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re
Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). Moreover, even if placing
Dando’s substrate in the same chamber as the vaporization would provide
the benefits asserted by the Examiner, the Examiner has not established that
doing so would not have disadvantages which would have caused one of
ordinary skill in the art to consider that modification to be unsuitable in
Dando’s method.
Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of the Appellant’s claimed method over Dando in view of Nath.
Rejection over Wang in view of Nath
Wang discloses a system for vaporizing solid and liquid precursors at
a controlled rate in chemical vapor deposition and ion implantation
processes (¶ 0002). The system includes a vaporization vessel (12) having
an input flow controller (11) to provide controlled delivery of a vaporizable
Appeal 2010-009549
Application 11/092,101

6
source material to the vaporization vessel (12) and an output flow
controller (24) to provide controlled delivery of vaporized source material
from the vaporization vessel (12) through a vapor line (26) to a processing
tool (35) (abstract; Fig. 1). The energy for the vaporization can be
ultraviolet energy (¶¶ 0053, 0061).
The Examiner’s arguments (Ans. 6-7) are similar to those set forth
with respect to the rejection over Dando in view of Nath and are
unpersuasive for the reasons given above regarding that rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 26 over
Dando in view of Nath, claims 1-9, 12, and 26 over Wang in view of Nath,
claims 3 and 4 over Dando in view of Nath and Wang, claims 10 and 11
over Wang in view of Nath and Dando, claim 23 over Dando or Wang, each
in view of Nath and Eom, claim 24 over Dando or Wang, each in view of
Nath and Loan, and claim 25 over Dando or Wang, each in view of Atwell
are reversed.
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED

sld