Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2006

10121284 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2006)

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and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

────────────
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
────────────
Ex parte LIHUA LI, WEN H. ZHU, TZU-FANG HUANG,
LI QUN XIA and ELLIE YIEH
────────────
Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284
────────────
ON BRIEF
────────────

Before KIMLIN, OWENS and FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal from the examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 28.
Independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter
on appeal and is set forth below:
1. A method for depositing a low dielectric constant film
having a dielectric constant of about 3.0 or less, comprising:

reacting a gas mixture comprising:
one or more cyclic organosilicon compounds;
one or more aliphatic organosilicon compounds;
one or more hydrocarbon compounds; and
one or more oxidizing gases; and
delivering the gas mixture to a substrate surface at
conditions sufficient to deposit the low dielectric constant
film on the substrate surface.

Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-2-
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Rose et al. (Rose) 6,068,884 May 30, 2000
Grill et al. (Grill) 6,312,793 Nov. 6, 2001
Xu et al. (Xu) 2003/0116421 Jun. 26, 2003
(Patent Application Publication) (filed Dec. 13, 2001)

On page 2 of the Answer, the examiner indicates that the
provisional double patenting rejection over co-pending
applications 10/302,240, 10/115,832, and 10/409,887 has been
withdrawn in light of the filing of the terminal disclaimer.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 26, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Xu in view of Grill.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 16, 18, 20 through 24, 26,
and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Grill.
Claims 17, 19, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Grill in view of Rose.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Xu in view of Grill and further in view of Rose.
Claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 28 stand rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 through 30 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,486,082 in view of Grill.
To the extent that any one claim is specifically and
separately argued regarding patentability, we will consider such
claim in this appeal. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September
2004); formerly 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte
Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).

Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-3-
OPINION
For each of the above-mentioned rejections, appellants
present similar arguments involving a single issue. The single
issue before us concerns the interpretation of the disclosure of
Grill at column 3, lines 14-27. Appellants dispute the
examiner’s findings with regard to Grill.
More specifically, in the Brief (arguments also are set
forth in the Reply Brief), appellants argue that the examiner’s
findings in connection with Grill’s disclosure in column 3 at
lines 14 through 27 is erroneous. Appellants state:
The portion of Grill ‘793 identified by the Examiner
states that the first precursor is selected from
“molecules with ring structures such as 1,3,5,7-
tetramethylcyclo-tetrasiloxane (TMCTS or C4H16O4Si4),
tetraethylcyclotetrasiloxane (C8H24O4Si4), decamethyl-
cyclopentasiloxane (C10H30O5Si5) molecules of methyl-
silanes mixed with an oxidizing agent such as O2 or N2O
or precursor mixtures including Si, O and C.” Grill
‘793 at col. 3, lines 19-22 (emphasis added). That
statement does not clearly indicate that aliphatic
organosilicon compounds are included as precursors
because the sentence does not make sense. The
underlined portion appears to be a single member of a
list of molecules with ring structures. The intent of
the author is not clear and is not explained elsewhere
in the reference. The literal interpretation of the
phrase “decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (C10H30O5Si5)
molecules of methylsilanes” is that the methylsilanes
are part of the decamethylcyclopentasiloxane ring
structure, which is consistent with the preface of
that sentence identifies molecules with ring
structures.

Applicants submit that the Examiner does not have
the liberty to fix unclear statements in a reference
to find anticipation or obviousness. Thus, Grill ‘793
does not add anything to Xu et al. regarding mixtures
Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-4-
of precursors and the rejection fails to identify any
suggestion of a mixture [of] one or more cyclic
organosilicon compound, one or more aliphatic
organosilicon compound, one or more hydrocarbons, and
one or more oxidizing gases as recited in claims 1,
20, and 23, and claims dependent thereon.

Brief, pages 11 through 12.

The examiner responds by stating that the examiner is not
fixing any unclear statements within the reference, but rather
deduces what the sentence suggests to one of ordinary skill in
the art. Answer, pages 11 through 12.
We agree with the examiner’s position because the
examiner’s reading of Grill is a reasonable one. We note that
Grill teaches, in Example 4, that a precursor of
trimethylsilane is used as the first precursor, and is used
together with BCHD. See column 8, lines 40 through 41 of Grill.
This supports the examiner’s reading of Grill regarding
“molecules of methylsilanes.” We further note that, according
to appellants’ specification, specific examples of the aliphatic
organosilicon compound include trimethylsilane. See appellants’
specification, page 5, line 12.
It is therefore clear that the use of the trimethylsilane
in Example 4 is not used in the manner as asserted by appellants
on page 12 of the Brief (that the interpretation of the phrase
decamethylcyclopenta-siloxane molecules of methylsilanes is that
the methylsilanes are part of the decamethylcyclopentasiloxane
ring structure).

Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-5-
In view of the above, we affirm each of the rejections.

II. CONCLUSION
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).

AFFIRMED

EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAF:clm

Appeal No. 2005-2442
Application No. 10/121,284

-6-
Applied Materials, Inc.
2881 Scott Blvd., M/S 2061
Santa Clara, CA 95050