Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2016

12846020 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/846,020 07/29/2010 Wai-Kin Li
133964 7590 06/17/2016
HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
540 Broadway
4th Floor
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FIS920100034US1 1148
EXAMINER
TRAN, TONY
ALBANY, NY 12207 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2016 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):
PTOCommunications@hoffmanwarnick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WAI-KIN LI, WU-SONG HUANG, JOY CHENG,
and KUANG-JUNG CHEN
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3-13, and 15-32. We have jurisdiction.
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. A September 25, 2015,
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification explains a need for precisely placed contact
openings of reduced sized for proper integration into sub-50nm CMOS
devices. Spec. i-fi-1 2---6. Appellants describe the present invention as relating
to a new method of forming contact openings. Spec. i-f l. Claims 1, 13, and
22 are the three independent claims on appeal. Claims 1 and 22 are
illustrative and are reproduced below with emphases added:
1. A method of forming a semiconductor structure,
compnsmg:
forming a set of shapes on top of a substrate;
applying a layer of copolymer covering said substrate;
causing said copolymer to form a plurality of cylindrical
blocks both inside and outside said set of shapes, said cylindrical
blocks inside said set of shapes being same in both shape and size
as said cylindrical blocks outside said set of shapes;
forming a pattern of contact holes from said plurality of
cylindrical blocks; and
transferring said pattern of contact holes to said substrate
to form said semiconductor structure,
wherein said set of shapes is a set of rings each having
an inner sidewall and an outer sidewall and forming said set
of shapes comprises forming said set of rings to be equally
spaced along a first and a second direction with said second
direction being 90-degree perpendicular to said first direction
and a first distance between two neighboring rings along said
first direction being same as a second distance between two
neighboring rings along said second direction; and applying said
layer of copolymer covering said substrate comprises forming
said layer of copolymer directly next to said inner sidewall and
said outer sidewall of said set of rings.
22. A method of forming a semiconductor structure, comprising:
assignment indicates the application was assigned from IBM to Global
Foundries U.S. 2 LLC.
2
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
forming a set of shapes on top of a substrate;
applying a layer of copolymer covering said substrate;
causing said copolymer to form a plurality of cylindrical
blocks both inside and outside said shapes;
forming a pattern of contact holes from said plurality of
cylindrical blocks; and
transferring said pattern of contact holes to said substrate to
form said semiconductor structure,
wherein said shapes are equally spaced both horizontally and
vertically.
Appeal Br.2 21, 25-26 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Happ et al.
(hereinafter "Happ")
Yang et al.
(hereinafter "Yang")
US 8,208,294 B2 June 26, 2012
US 2007/0293041 Al Dec. 20, 2007
REJECTIONS
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 4 and 25. The
Examiner also withdraws rejection of claims 3-12 as obvious based on Happ
in view of Yang. Ans. 2.
Keeping the withdrawn rejections in mind, the Examiner maintains
the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1, 3, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Yang in view of Happ. Final Act. 2.
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed December 30,
2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed June 6, 2014 ("Appeal Br."), and
the Examiner's Answer mailed August 20, 2014 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
Rejection 2. Claims 13, 15-24, and 26-30 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Yang. Id. at 7.
Rejection 3. Claims 1, 13, 22, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Happ in view of Yang. Id. at 13.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Yang in
view of Happ. The Examiner identifies the circular shapes of Yang at Figure
9B as corresponding to claim 1 's recited "set of shapes." Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner acknowledges that Yang does not teach the shapes as being a
set of rings having all recited limitations of claim 1. Id. at 3. The Examiner
thus relies on Happ as teaching rings having the recited limitations. Id. at 4.
The Examiner explains that it would have been obvious to combine Happ's
teachings with Yang because:
It would have been obvious to one [sic] ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention was made to include the above said
teaching for forming an [sic] uniform contact hole regions with
equally in space between horizontal and vertical direction as
taught by Happ.
Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 6-7.
Appellants first argue that Yang does not teach rings having an inner
and outer sidewall. Appeal Br. 7. 3 To explain why we agree the Examiner
has not established this point, we begin with claim construction. In the
context of the Specification, the claimed "ring" is a physical structure rather
3 The Examiner's first rejection is unclear as to whether or not the Examiner
relies on Yang for this purpose. Final Act. 2-3. Resolution of this issue is
nonetheless required because it is, at a minimum, key to addressing to the
Examiner's rejection of claim 13 as explained below.
4
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
than merely being, for example, an imaginary line indicating where a hole
exists. See, e.g., i-f 29, Fig. 3(a), Fig 3(b). Thus, we do not agree with the
Examiner's submission that the recited "ring" of claim 1 means "a circular
or surrounding line or mark." Ans. 4.
With this clarification in mind, the Examiner's citation to Figure 9B of
Yang (Ans. 4) does not demonstrate a plurality of rings having an inner and
outer sidewall. Rather, we agree with Appellants (Appeal Br. 7) that "shape
2" ofYang's Figures 7B, 8B, 9B, IOB, 1 IB, and 12B depict an opening
rather than a ring. This is apparent from Yang's corresponding side view
figures (Figures 7A, 8A, 9A, IOA, llA, and 12A). See also e.g., Yang i-f 65
(referring to "lithographic opening 2"). Thus, based on the present record,
we do not agree with the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 7-8) that Yang
teaches rings a ring having an inner and outer sidewall.
Appellants also argue that a person of skill would not have combined
Happ's alleged rings with Yang because forming the rings would cause most
of Yang's underneath mask layer to be exposed and etched away. Appeal
Br. 7. The Examiner does not persuasively address the Appellants' position
on this point. Ans. 6-7. Moreover, while the Examiner provides some
explanation for incorporating Happ's spacing of rings into Yang (see id.;
Final Act. 4), the Examiner provides no persuasive explanation for why a
person of skill would have incorporated Happ's structure for each individual
ring into Yang. Thus, based on the present record, a preponderance of
evidence does not support that a person of skill would have combined
Happ' s ring structure into the structure of Yang.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 based
on Yang in view of Happ. Likewise, we do not sustain the Examiner's
5
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
rejection of claims 3 and 5-12 based on Yang in view of Happ because each
of those claims depends from claim 1.
Rejection 2, claim 13. The Examiner rejects independent claim 13 as
anticipated by Yang or, in the alternative, obvious in view of Yang. Claim
13, like claim 1, requires rings; it recites "forming a set of rings on top of a
substrate, said set of rings each having an inner sidewall and an outer
sidewall." Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix). As explained above, the
Examiner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Yang
teaches or suggests rings having an inner and outer sidewall. We therefore
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13. We also do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 15-21 because those claims depend from
claim 13.
Rejection 2, claim 22. The Examiner also rejects independent claim
22 as anticipated by Yang or, in the alternative, obvious in view of Yang.
Unlike claims 1 and 13, claim 22 does not recite rings having an inner and
outer sidewall.
Claim 22 recites "causing said copolymer to form a plurality of
cylindrical blocks both inside and outside said shapes." Appellants argue
that Yang does not teach causing the copolymer to form cylindrical blocks
outside of what the Examiner equates to the recited shape. Appeal Br. 7. 4
We again begin with claim construction. Claim 22' s recited "said shapes"
refers back to the set of shapes created by "forming a set of shapes on top of
a substrate." Thus, to be "outside said shapes" means to be outside of each
shape in the set of shapes created in the forming step. This claim
construction is consistent with the Specification which explains how
4 Appellants addressed claim 1 when making this argument, but the same
argument applies equally to claim 22.
6
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
copolymer cylinders are formed both inside individual rings and also outside
the set of rings; in other words, the Specification teaches formation of
cylinders that are not inside any of the rings. Spec. i-f 35; Figs. 5A, 5B.
With this construction in mind, we do not agree with the Examiner's
finding that Yang teaches cylinders formed outside said shapes. Final Act.
11, 13; Ans. 5, 12. In particular, the Examiner appears to find that Yang
teaches cylinders outside said shapes because, for example, if there are four
rings all with cylinders inside them, the cylinders inside shapes 3 and 4 are
outside the set of shapes consisting of shapes 1 and 2. Ans. 12. This
reasoning, however, does not establish that shapes 3 and 4 are not part of the
set of shapes created by "forming a set of shapes on top of a substrate" as
recited in claim 22. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claim 22. Likewise, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
23, 24, and 26-30 because those claims depend from claim 22.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 13, 22, 31, and 32 as
obvious over Happ in view of Yang. Appellants argue that, as with Yang,
Happ does not teach cylindrical blocks formed outside the set of shapes
(claims 1 and 22) I set of rings (claim 13). Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner
finds that Happ teaches cylinders outside Happ' s shapes based upon the
reasoning parallel to the reasoning applied to Yang. Ans. 17-18. Thus,
based upon our claim construction and reasoning above, we disagree with
the Examiner's determination, and we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 13, 22, 31, and 32.
7
Appeal2015-001379
Application 12/846,020
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1, 3, 5-13, 15-24, and 26-32. We again note that the Examiner withdrew
the rejection of claims 4 and 25.
REVERSED
8