Ex Parte Lin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

12652464 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/652,464 01/05/2010
23589 7590 09/21/2016
Hovey Williams LLP
10801 Mastin Blvd., Suite 1000
Overland Park, KS 66210
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Qin Lin
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.
40040 1173
EXAMINER
PHAM, THOMAS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
patents@hoveywilliams.com
amalik@hoveywilliams.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIN LIN, RAMA PULIGADDA, JAMES CLAYPOOL,
DOUGLAS J. GUERRERO, and BRIAN SMITH
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a non-final rejection
dated February 25, 2014 of claims 1, 3-9, and 12-21. 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Examiner objected to claims 10 and 11 as dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Non-Final Action 2. Accordingly, these claims are not before us for review
on appeal.
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
Appellants' invention is directed to a method of forming a
microelectronic structure. App. Br. 5-9. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. A method of forming a microelectronic structure, said
method comprising:
providing a precursor structure having a patterned
surface, said patterned surface including at least one raised
feature having first and second sidewalls and an upper surface;
spin-applying a shrinkable composition to said patterned
surface, said composition having an initial thickness and
covering said at least one raised feature having said first and
second sidewalls and said upper surface;
heating said shrinkable composition, wherein said
composition shrinks by at least about 25% so as to form a
conformal layer of said composition on said patterned surface
and over said at least one raised feature, said conformal layer
having a final thickness that is at least about 25% less than said
initial thickness; and
removing at least some of said conformal layer to yield a
pre-spacer structure comprising said at least one raised feature
and remnants of said conformal layer against said at least one
raised feature first and second sidewalls.
The Examiner maintained from the Examiner's Final Action:
I. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
II. Claims 1, 3-9, 13, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over de Villiers '016 (US 2010/0130016 Al,
published May 27, 2010), Cheng (US 2011/0104616 Al, published May 5,
2011) and Nagai (US 2010/0009292 Al, published January 14, 2010).
2
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
Ill. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over de Villiers '016, Cheng, Nagai, and Thiyagarajan (US
2009/0317739 Al, published December 24, 2009).
IV. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over de Villiers '016, Cheng, Nagai, and Kudo (US
2006/0088788 Al, published April 27, 2006).
V. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over de Villiers '016, Cheng, Nagai, and Okamoto (US 2008/0319152 Al,
published December 25, 2008).
VI. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over de Villiers '016, Cheng, Nagai and Chan (US 2009/0258501 Al,
published October 15, 2009).
VII. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over de Villiers '397 (US 2009/0291397 Al,
published November 26, 2003), Cheng and Nagai.
VIII. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over de Villiers '397, Cheng, Nagai, and Thiyagarajan.
IX. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over de Villiers '397, Cheng, Nagai, and Kudo.
X. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over de Villiers '397, Cheng, Nagai, and Okamoto.
XI. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over de Villiers '397 and Chan.
XII. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over de Villiers '397, Cheng, Nagai, and de Villiers '016.
XIII. Claims 1, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sugeta (US 2006/0003601 Al, published January 5,
2006).
3
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
OPINION
Rejection Under 35 U.S. C. § 112, 2nd Paragraph (Rejection I)
We REVERSE.
The Examiner concluded that the language "said second pattern being
double that of the first pattern" in claim 4 and the language "said second
pattern being triple that of the first pattern" in claim 12 are unclear as to the
attribute that is doubled or tripled. Non-Final Act. 4; Ans. 22-23.
Appellants argue the claims are not unclear, when properly interpreted
from the perspective of one or ordinary skill in the art and consistent with
the Specification. Reply Br. 15; App. Br. 10-11. In support of their
assertion, Appellants point to figures of the Specification as providing
support for the disputed language. Reply Br. 16-17; App.Br. 11; Spec.
Figures 1 (double patterning) and 2 (triple patterning). Appellants also
proffer Declarations under 37 C.F.R § 1.132 by co-inventors Qin Lin (Lin
Declaration) and Rama Puligadda (Puligadda Declaration)2 as well as
documentary Exhibits A---C to establish the disputed language as terms of
art. Reply Br. 16-17; App. Br. 10-11.
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants' arguments of
definiteness. Appellants describe double patterning in the Specification as
creating two spacers (features) by depositing a coating on pre-patterned
features and then etching to remove those portions of the coating present on
the horizontal surfaces and, subsequently, further remove the original pre-
patterned features. Spec. 1. That is, two spacers (features) are created for
2 The Declarations by co-inventors Lin and Puligadda were submitted on
July 10, 2013 and December 2, 2013, respectively. The Examiner entered
each of the declarations into the record in the Final Action of August 1, 2013
and the Non-Final Action of February 25, 2014, respectively.
4
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
every original spacer (feature). Id. This description is consistent with the
description presented in Appellants' Exhibit B (Bencher et al., 22nm Half-
Pitch Patterning by CVD Spacer Self Alignment Double Patterning (SADP),
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/07/2013).
Given this disclosure in the Specification, including Figures 1 a-1 e
(double patterning) and Figures 2a-2k (triple patterning), the Examiner has
not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would conclude that the
disputed language of claims 4 and 12 is indefinite. That is, the Examiner has
not adequately explained why claims 4 and 12 fail to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the
invention.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
Prior Art Rejections IL VII and )(]f3
Appellants present arguments for independent claims 1 and 21 and
dependent claim 8. Appellants do not present separate argument for the
dependent claims 3-7, 9, 13, 18, and 19, all of which ultimately depend from
claim 1. See Appeal Brief, generally. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as
representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. Claims argued
3 The Rejections II and VII (and XII) rely on de Villiers '016 and de Villiers
'397 as primary references, respectively, in addressing claims 1, 3-9, 13, 18,
19, and 21. See Non-Final Action, generally. The Examiner found both
de Villiers' references teach a method that differs from the claimed invention
in that the de Villiers' references do not explicitly disclose the coating layer
shrinks upon heating. Ans. 16-17. For brevity, we address Rejections II,
VII, and XII together.
5
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
separately will be addressed separately. However, claims 3-7, 9, 13, 18, and
19 stand or fall with claim 1.
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellants and
the Examiner, we AFFIRM the Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1, 3-
9, 13, 18, 19, and 21 based on de Villiers '016 (Rejection II) and of claims 1,
3-9, 13, 18, 19 based on de Villiers '397 (Rejection VII and XII) under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner. However, we
REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 based on de Villiers '397
(Rejection VII) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by
Appellants.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer for a statement of the rejections.
Ans. 16-17.4
Appellants argue that the de Villiers references (hereinafter referred to
collectively as de Villiers) relate to a RELACS (Resolution Enhancement
Lithography Assisted by Chemical Shrink) process that does not involve
shrinkable compositions. Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 13, 20. In support of this
argument, Appellants refer to paragraph 4 of the Declaration under 3 7 CPR
1.132 by Dr. Qin Lin. According to Declarant Lin, de Villiers' "Chemical
Shrink" is not in reference to shrinking the spacer material itself, but to
shrinking the structures while the claimed invention uses a spacer material
that shrinks upon heating to form a conformal coating. Reply Br. 6; App.
Br. 13-15, 20; Lin Dec. i-f 4. Appellants further argue one skilled in the art
4 A discussion of Chen is unnecessary for disposition of this appeal. This
reference was relied upon by the Examiner to teach that crosslinking of a
composition results in shrinking of the composition volume. Ans. 17. As
noted in our discussion, this teaching is embodied in Nagai. Nagai i-fi-1 7, 9.
6
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
would not use a shrinkable composition in a RELACS process because the
spacer material in such a process is only selectively reacted and not
uniformly reacted as the shrinkable composition of Appellants. Reply Br. 5,
7; App. Br. 14--15, 20; Lin Deel. i-f 4; Puligadda Deel. i-f 4; de Villiers '397 i-fi-f
21-24; de Villiers '016 i-f 141. Appellants additionally argue nothing in
Nagai overcomes the deficiencies of de Villiers because the shrinkage in
Nagai refers to shrinking the hole diameter by depositing material in the
resist hole which selectively crosslinks on the sidewalls (in contact with the
resist) and can be washed away in the center of the hole to incrementally
narrow or "shrink" the hole diameter. Reply Br. 3-5; App. Br. 21; Nagai
Table 1, i-fi-1 85-86.
We are unpersuaded. As noted by the Examiner, de Villiers discloses
a method of double patterning by coating a first feature with a spacer
material and forming new features by removing portions of the applied
spacer material once crosslinked and the original first feature. Ans. 16-17;
de Villiers '016 Figures 9A-9D; de Villiers '397 Figures 1---6. The Examiner
recognized de Villiers does not disclose the spacer material coating as heat
shrinkable. Ans. 16. To remedy this difference, the Examiner turns to
Nagai as teaching the use of a spacer material coating comprising alcohol
and other solvents (propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate) in
combination with crosslinking agents (glycolurils) that is subject to heat
treatment to provide a padding on the walls of a hole to reduce the size
thereof upon crosslinking. Ans. 17; Nagai i-fi-19, 30, 36, 42, 47, 50, 57, 60.
As noted by the Examiner, Nagai's spacer material coating is the same as the
material disclosed by Appellants and, thus, the Examiner found Nagai' s heat
shrinkable composition shrinks by at least about 25% as claimed. Ans. 17;
7
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
Spec. 10-11; Nagai iii! 30, 42. The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the spacer material coating
of de Villiers for the spacer material coating of Nagai in order to make
smaller structures. Ans. 17. Thus, the Examiner provided a reasonable basis
to combine the cited art to arrive to the claimed invention.
Appellants' argument that Nagai does not disclose a shrinkable
composition is unavailing. Reply Br. 3-5; App. Br. 21; Nagai Table 1, iii!
85-86. It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific
teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1264--65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Nagai discloses using a resin
composition for forming a micropattem that shrinks a pattern by heat
treatment where the composition exhibits an excellent capability of
controlling the dimensions of a cured film. Nagai if 9. As noted by the
Examiner, Nagai's composition comprises components that are the same as
those disclosed by Appellants. Ans. 17; Spec. 10-11; Nagai iii! 30, 42. That
is, one skilled in the art would infer that Nagai discloses a shrinkable
composition. While Appellants argue that the combined teachings of the
cited art do not teach a composition that shrinks by at least 25% (Reply Br.
6, App. Br. 13, 20-21), Appellants have not provided a technical explanation
why Nagai's composition, comprising the same components as disclosed by
Appellants, would not shrink to the extent claimed when subjected to heat
treatment (Ans. 17-18). Cf In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 391(CCPA1963)
("From the standpoint of patent law, a compound and all of its properties are
inseparable; they are one and the same thing.").
8
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
We also find Appellants' argument that de Villiers is directed to a
different process (RELACS) than the one claimed because the spacer
material coating of de Villiers is selectively reacted as opposed to uniformly
reacted unpersuasive. Reply Br. 5,-7; App. Br. 13-15, 20; Lin Deel. i-f 4;
Puligadda Deel. i-f 4; de Villiers '397 i-fi-f 21-24; de Villiers '016 i-f 141.
Appellants' arguments and evidence do not undermine the rationale
presented by the Examiner for combining the teachings of the prior art.
Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art, using
no more than ordinary creativity, would not have been capable of adapting
the method of de Villiers to incorporate the shrinkable composition of Nagai
to make smaller structures. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir.
1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art); In re
Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 8 and 21 require a precursor structure comprising a first layer
spin-on carbon layer, said second layer comprising a hard mask layer, and a
patterned surface comprising a photosensitive layer.
The Examiner found de Villiers 'O 16 discloses usmg a precursor
structure comprising a hardmask layer 120 formed of spin-on amorphous
carbon, a Bottom Anti-Refection Coating (BARC) layer, and a patterned resist
layer 230, wherein the hard mask layer 120 may be formed of amorphous
carbon. Ans. 18-19; de Villiers '016 Figures 3A, 3C, i-fi-154, 56, 57, 59, 135.
The Examiner found the unexposed portions 234 of the photoresist layer 230
to be equivalent to the claimed hardmask layer. Ans. 19; deVilliers '016
Figure 3C.
Appellants' principal argument regarding these claims is that the
Examiner fails to point out where de Villiers 'O 16 teaches or suggests a layer
9
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
of hard mask and a layer of spin-on carbon as claimed. Reply Br. 9; App.
Br. 22. According to Appellants, the hard mask layer and the spin-on
carbon layer are separate and distinct elements of claims 8 and 21 and
de Villiers 'O 16 hard mask layer cannot be used to meet both recited layers.
Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 22-23.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments. The Examiner's rejection
relies on the unexposed regions 234 of the photoresist layer as equivalent to
the claimed hardmask layer and not on the BARC layer as argued. Ans. 19;
Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 23. Appellants' arguments do not address the
Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 21 or otherwise show reversible error
with it. Appellants' arguments do not explain why the unexposed regions
234 could not function as a hard mask. Moreover, de Villiers '016 discloses
that more than one hardmask layer can be applied. de Villiers '016 i-f 56.
That is, de Villiers 'O 16 suggests a precursor structure having two separate
amorphous carbon layers 120 with an additional layer of unexposed regions
234 over one of the amorphous carbon layers.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
1, 3-9, 13, 18, 19, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on de Villiers '016
as the primary reference (Rejection II) for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and given above .. We also affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9,
13, 18, and 19 (Rejection VII) and the separate rejection of claim 8 (XII)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on de Villiers '397 as the primary reference
for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. However, we
reverse the rejection of claim 21 based on de Villiers '397 as a primary
reference (Rejection VII). The Examiner did not adequately address
10
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
Appellants' arguments that the claim was improperly rejected under this
ground. Reply Br. 8; App. Br. 18-19; Ans. 20.
Prior Art Rejections III, IV, VL VIIL IX and XI
The Examiner presented separate rejections of claims 14--16 and 20
based de Villiers and a number of additional references (Thiyagarajan, Kubo,
Chan) (Rejections III, IV, VI, VIII, IX and XI). Non-Final Act. 8-12, 15-
18.
Appellants' principally argue that the additional references, like
de Villiers, are also directed to the RELACS process for double patterning.
App. Br. 24--30.
We have addressed the issue of RELACS above. We have also
considered Appellants' arguments with respect to the noted rejections and
remain unpersuaded. Appellants' additional arguments do not address the
reasons for which the Examiner relied upon these additional secondary
references.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's prior art rejections of claims
14--16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejections III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, and
XI) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above.
Prior Art Rejections V and X
In addition, the Examiner presented separate rejections of claim 17
based on de Villiers and Okamoto. (Rejections V and X). Non-Final Act.
10-11 and 17-18.
Claim 17 requires the addition of at least one specific organometallic
compound.
11
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
The Examiner relied on Okamoto as teaching addition of such a
compound, an aluminum chelate such as aluminum diisopropoxide
ethylacetoacetate, to a curable composition containing a cross-linking agent
where the curable composition exhibits practical curability and excellent
adhesion result compared to a comparative example (Example 11 ). Ans. 20;
Non-Final Act. 10-11, 17-18; Okamoto Table 2, i-fi-f 106, 208.
Appellants argue Okamoto is concerned with a fundamentally
different field of endeavor (compositions for use on exterior building
surfaces) and is not concerned with the same or similar problems addressed
by either the invention or de Villiers. Reply Br. 10-11; App. Br. 28;
Okamoto i-f 140.
We are unpersuaded by this argument for the reasons presented by the
Examiner. Ans. 20-21. Moreover, both references are from the same field
of endeavor, curable coatings. Appellants have not adequately explained
why one skilled in the art would not have been capable of using known
organometallic compounds for curable coatings in the composition of Nagai.
Prior Art Rejection XJJJ5
The Examiner additionally rejected claims 1, 9, 18, and 19 based on
Sugeta alone (Rejection XIII). We refer to the Examiner Non-Final Action
for a complete statement of this rejection. Non-Final Act. 20-21.
5 Appellants do not argue one claim separate from the other. See Appeal
Brief, generally. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
subject matter before us on appeal. Claims 9, 18, and 19 stand or fall with
claim 1.
12
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
Appellants' principal arguments concerning this rejection is that
Sugeta is directed to a RELACS-type process. Reply Br. 12-15; App. Br.
32; Puligadda Deel. i-f 5.
Assuming arguendo that Sugeta is directed to a RELACS-type process
as argued by Appellants, we again refer to our previous discussion on this
issue and note that Sugeta expressly discloses covering the substrate having
photoresist patterns with an over-coating agent for forming fine patterns and
applying heat treatment to cause thermal shrinkage of the over-coating agent
so that the spacing between adjacent photoresist patterns is lessened. Sugeta
i-f 15. That is, Sugeta discloses using a shrinkable composition. Thus,
Appellants have not pointed to error in the Examiner's determination of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 9, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Rejection XIII) for the reasons presented
by the Examiner and given above.
ORDER
The Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
112,second paragraph (Rejection I), is reversed.
The Examiner's prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-9, 13, 18, 19, and
21 (Rejection II) and of 1, 3-9, 13, 18, and 19 (Rejections VII and XII)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claim 21 (Rejections VII) under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 14--17 and 20 (Rejections
III-VI and VIII-XI) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
13
Appeal2015-003476
Application 12/652,464
The Examiner's prior art rejection of claims 1, 9, 18, and 19
(Rejection XIII) under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
14