Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

13072663 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/072,663 03/25/2011
133103 7590 09/26/2016
Oblon!fEH
1940 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JunjunLIU
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.
412229US41YA 6467
EXAMINER
BLAN, NICOLE R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
patentdocket@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNJUN LIU, DOREL I. TOMA, and
HONGYUYUE
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, and 21-26. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification (Spec.) filed March 25,
2011, the Final Office Action (Final Act.) delivered June 27, 2014,
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) filed October 21, 2014, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) delivered December 18, 2014, and Appellants'
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed February 12, 2015.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Tokyo Electron Limited.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of cleaning a
substrate including a patterned element (see, e.g., claim 1 ). Appellants
disclose that damage and the accumulation of undesirable residues on the
substrate may occur during a patterning process. Spec. i-fi-155 and 56. In
view of these potential problems, Appellants disclose a method of cleaning a
substrate by irradiating a region of the substrate with infrared radiation, and
optionally ultraviolet radiation, while exposing at least a portion of the
region to a gas or vapor jet emanating from a gas nozzle along a jet axis in a
direction towards the substrate. Id. at i-fi-f l 0 and 57.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The
limitations at issue are italicized.
1. A method of cleaning a substrate, comprising:
irradiating an interior region on a substrate near a center
of the substrate containing one or more layers or strr1ctures
including a patterned element with infrared (IR) radiation and
optionally ultraviolet (UV) radiation to remove material or
undesired residues from the patterned element of said one or
more layers or structures;
simultaneously exposing at least a side portion of said
patterned element to 1) a gas or vapor jet emanating from a gas
nozzle along a jet axis in a direction towards said patterned
element and 2) the IR radiation; and
upon said exposing with the gas or vapor jet and the IR
radiation, removing said material or undesired residues from
said side portion of the patterned element while not removing a
substantial part of the patterned element.
Appeal Br. 22.
2
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(1) claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 21, 22, and 24 as unpatentable over
Kawaguchi3 in view of Berry4 and America;5
(2) claims 10-15 and 26 as unpatentable over Kawaguchi, Berry,
and America, and further in view of Liu; 6 and
(3) claims 23 and 25 as unpatentable over Kawaguchi, Berry, and
America, and further in view of Kubota 7 and Matz. 8
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Kawaguchi discloses a substrate including one or
more layers, including a low-k dielectric layer patterned via a patterned
resist layer and an etching process. Final Act. 6. The low-k dielectric layer
of Kawaguchi extends across the surface of the substrate and therefore is
near a center of the substrate. Id. Kawaguchi discloses creating a pattern
and passivating sidewalls of the pattern, leaving photoresist and a residue
that must be removed. Id. at 6-7.
The Examiner further finds Kawaguchi does not disclose cleaning the
substrate by irradiating an interior region near the center of the substrate and
3 Kawaguchi et al., US 2003/0075524 Al, published April 24, 2003
("Kawaguchi").
4 Berry et al., US 6,734,120 Bl, issued May 11, 2004 ("Berry").
5 America et al., US 2008/0210270 Al, published September 4, 2008
("America").
6 Liu et al., US 2009/0227119 Al, published September 10, 2009 ("Liu").
7 Kubota et al., US 2008/0194115 Al, published August 14, 2008
("Kubota").
8 Matz et al., US 2004/0152296 Al, published August 5, 2004 ("Matz").
3
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
exposing at least a portion of a side of a patterned element to a gas or vapor
jet emanating from a gas nozzle along a jet axis in a direction toward the
pattern, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 7. However, the Examiner finds Berry
discloses a process to remove sidewall passivation and resist residue via
ultraviolet and infrared radiation while applying a reactive gas. Id. The
process of Berry removes the sidewall passivation and resist residue without
removing a substantial part of a patterned element because a different
process is used to remove the resist. Id. The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to use the cleaning process of Berry as a method to
remove the passivation and resist residues disclosed by Kawaguchi. Id.
Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Berry does not disclose "that the
exposing to gas occurs by emanating gas from a nozzle along a jet axis in the
direction towards the pattern to remove the undesired residues from the side
portion of the pattern." Id. The Examiner finds America discloses the
treatment of three-dimensional features formed in substrates by using
ultraviolet and infrared radiation, as well as exposing the substrate to a gas
jet emanating from a gas nozzle along a jet axis in a direction toward the
substrate. Id. at 7-8. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to use the gas nozzle disclosed by America as the means of exposing the
substrate of Kawaguchi to the reactive gas of Berry. Id. at 8.
Appellants contend the Examiner relies upon America to disclose
"exposing at least a side portion of said patterned element to 1) a gas or
vapor jet emanating from a gas nozzle along a jet axis in a direction towards
said patterned element," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants
assert America does not disclose a gas or vapor jet emanating from a gas
nozzle along a jet axis in a direction towards a patterned element because
4
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
America discloses the removal of debris or unintentional films from the
periphery of a semiconductor wafer, where there would be no patterned
elements. Appeal Br. 7-11; Reply Br. 7-9. In view of this, Appellants
argue America teaches the opposite of emanating gas or a vapor jet along a
jet axis in a direction towards a patterned element and teach away from the
process of claim 1. Appeal Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 9-10.
Appellants further contend the basis to support the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness is factually incorrect because America does not
direct gas or a vapor jet to an interior of a substrate where a patterned
element would be located. Appeal Br. 12-13. Additionally, Appellants
argue the Examiner's rationale for modifying Kawaguchi and Berry in view
of America does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
used "a gas or vapor jet emanating from a gas nozzle along a jet axis in a
direction towards said patterned element," as recited in claim 1, because
America discloses a jet axis in a direction away from the center of a wafer.
Appeal Br. 14--15.
These arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As explained by the Examiner at
page 8 of the Final Office Action and pages 2-3 and 5 of the Answer, the
Examiner relies on Kawaguchi and Berry to disclose a low-k layer across a
surface of a substrate, including a patterned area near its center, and a
cleaning process for the patterns of the substrate, while relying on America
to provide a particular nozzle for use in the cleaning process.
5
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
The disclosures of Kawaguchi and Berry support the Examiner's
findings. Paragraphs 33-36 of Kawaguchi disclose a dielectric layer 149
formed on an upper surface of a substrate 10 that is processed via standard
lithography methods to create a pattern 32 of openings in the dielectric layer
14. Kawaguchi further discloses an etchant used in the patterning process
causes the formation of a residue 34, such as on sidewalls of the dielectric
layer 14, which must be removed, along with a remaining photoresist 16.
Kawaguchi i-fi-136 and 37. Berry discloses a process in which photoresist is
removed and photoresist residue is also removed from the sidewalls of holes
via irradiation and reactive gas. Berry 2:48---60 and claim 1.
Therefore, Kawaguchi and Berry disclose a general process for the
removal of photoresist and a residue from patterned elements (e.g., holes) in
a central area of a substrate. America discloses a particular means and
structure for carrying out the process, specifically a nozzle for emanating a
gas or vapor jet along a jet axis, as depicted in Figures 1 and 4 of America.
America is not incorporated verbatim or in its entirety into the process of
Kawaguchi, as modified by Berry, in the Examiner's rejection. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("The test for obviousness is not
whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated
into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art." (citations omitted)).
Further, Appellants have not asserted, much less provided any
credible evidence, that the proposed modification would have been beyond
9 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
6
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Absent such an
assertion supported by evidence, we "take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ," and
find a person of ordinary skill in the art would overcome those difficulties
within their level of skill. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007); see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). Thus, when the Kawaguchi process
is modified by the teachings of Berry and America, as proposed by the
Examiner, the nozzle for emanating a gas or vapor jet along a jet axis as
disclosed in America would be in a direction towards a patterned element as
claimed. As a result, Appellants' argument that America does not disclose
or suggest a gas or vapor jet emanating from a gas nozzle along a jet axis in
a direction towards a patterned element, as recited in claim 1, does not
address the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants further argue there would not have been a reasonable
expectation of success in modifying the combination of Kawaguchi and
Berry in view of America to provide a process that removes material or
undesired residues without removing a substantial part of a patterned
element. Appeal Br. 16. Specifically, Appellants contend America merely
discloses a general approach without specific guidance about which
parameters would be critical for the removal of a material or undesired
residues without removing a substantial part of a patterned element or how
the gas nozzle means of America could be used in the process of Berry
without disrupting the process. Appeal Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 11-12.
These arguments are also unpersuasive because the Examiner does not
rely upon America for the removal of a material or undesired residues
7
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
without removing a substantial part of a patterned element, as discussed
above. The Examiner finds Berry discloses removal of photoresist and the
removal of a photoresist residue without removal of a substantial part of a
patterned element, citing Berry's process for the removal of residue from the
sidewalls of patterned holes. Ans. 11. Appellants do not direct us to any
credible evidence showing that combining America and Berry to remove
photoresist as claimed would have been beyond the skill of the ordinary
artisan.
Appellants next argue that Berry discloses the removal of residue
occurs via a water rinse, not due to exposure to infrared radiation and gas or
a vapor jet, because Berry's process of irradiation and gas exposure converts
the residue to a water soluble material that is removed by a subsequent
rinsing step. Appeal Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 5-6.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of reversible error. In re Jung
supra. First, Berry discloses the irradiation and gas exposure process "either
volatilizes the residue or renders it more hydrophilic, and easier to remove
by rinsing with deionized water." Berry 2:3---6. Thus, the irradiation and gas
exposure process can volatilize residue, which would remove the residue.
Second, claim 1 does not exclude removal of the material or undesired
residues via a water rinse. Claim 1 recites "upon said exposing with the gas
or vapor jet and the IR radiation, removing said material or undesired
residues from said side portion of the patterned element while not removing
a substantial part of the patterned element." This language does not require
the removal of the material or undesired residues to occur during the
irradiation and gas or vapor jet exposure step or otherwise limit the removal
to the irradiation and gas or vapor jet exposure step.
8
Appeal2015-004219
Application 13/072,663
In view of the above, Appellants' arguments do not demonstrate a
reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants do not present any arguments in support of the separate
patentability of claims 3-5, 7-9, 21, 22, and 24. Therefore, for the reasons
set forth above, and for those expressed in the Examiner's Answer, the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 21, 22, and 24 over Kawaguchi,
Berry, and America is sustained.
Claims 10-15, 23, 25, and 26 have not been argued separately and
therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Therefore, we likewise
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 10-15, 23, 25, and 26.
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons given in the Answer and
above, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 7-15, and 21-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Kawaguchi, Berry, and America, alone or further in view of Liu or Kubota
and Matz, 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)(l).
AFFIRMED
9