Ex Parte Matsuda

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2012

11084024 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TSUKASA MATSUDA
___________

Appeal 2009-014119
Application 11/084,024
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

SECOND DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant requests a second rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our
Decision on Request for Reconsideration (“Rehearing Decision” or “Reh’g
Dec.”), entered June 15, 2012, in which we modified our original Decision,
affirming the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17.
The Second Request for Rehearing is denied.

Appeal 2009-014119
Application 11/084,024

2
DISCUSSION
First, Appellant argues that “the rehearing decision has significantly
modified the original decision such that the rehearing decision is, in effect, a
new decision.” (Second Req. for Reh’g 1.) In particular, Appellant argues
that “the original decision has been modified to add two full paragraphs” and
“the reasoning has significantly changed from the original decision.” (Id.)
However, Appellant’s argument does not point out with particularity or
explain why the two newly added paragraphs have “significantly changed”
the original decision.
Second, Appellant advocates for the “Board to acknowledge that a
new issue was raised and to designate its decision as a new ground of
rejection.” (Second Req. for Reh’g 2.) In particular, Appellant states that
“the reasoning provided in the above noted Rehearing Decision [at page 4]
was never previously raised by the Examiner during prosecution or in the
Examiner’s Answer.” (Id.) Appellant also states that “[i]n the present case,
the rationale, in effect, changes the basic ‘thrust of the rejection’ by asserting
new claim interpretations which were never asserted by the Examiner.”
(Id. at 3.)
However, it is not a new ground of rejection for the Board to respond
to Appellant’s arguments using different language, or restating the reasoning
of the rejection in a different way, so long as the evidence relied upon is the
same and the “basic thrust of the rejection” is the same. See In re Kronig,
539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976). In particular, citing to a different
portion of an applied reference, which “goes no farther than, and merely
elaborates upon, what is taught by” the previously-cited portion of that
Appeal 2009-014119
Application 11/084,024

3
reference relied upon by the Examiner, does not constitute a new ground of
rejection. See In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1382 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
The Examiner’s Answer articulates that following facts and rationale
for rejecting independent claim 1:
Eom discloses a method for depositing a film on a substrate
using a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD)
process, comprising:
. . .
introducing within said process chamber, after the
completion of the reduction reaction between the first and
second process materials, a third material which is a reactive
gas that chemically reacts with contaminants in said process
chamber, to release the contaminants from at least one of a
process chamber component or said substrate (Eom, Figure –
[step C –(NH3)] and Abstract).
(Ans. 5-6 (brackets in original).) In particular, the Examiner states that:
“Eom teaches supplying a first process material TiCl with a second process
material H2 during step A of the ALD cycle (Eom, figure [1]). The reaction
that occurs between TiCl and H2 is understood in the art to be a reduction
reaction.” (Ans. 15.) Page 4 of our Rehearing Decision states:
“Furthermore, the claim language ‘after the completion of the reduction
reaction between the first and second process materials’ is broad enough to
encompass the ‘two-part reduction reaction’ of Eom that includes the
reduction reaction between TiCl4 and H2 (i.e., the first step (A) of Eom
(Eom, p. 6)).” Accordingly, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, our
Rehearing Decision equates the claim language “after the completion of the
reduction reaction between the first and second process materials” with the
first step (A) of Eom.
Moreover, the Examiner’s Answer states that:
Appeal 2009-014119
Application 11/084,024

4
Step C of Eom introduces a third material NH3 into the
ALD chamber. The NH3 is disclosed to react with the Ti
metallic layer. In order for the NH3 to react with the Ti there
must be Cl present (contaminant left from the first reaction of
step A). During this step the Ti combines with N and the Cl
contaminant combines with the H3, thereby forming a
monolayer of TiN and a HCl by product.
(Ans. 16.) Page 4 of our Rehearing Decision states:
Likewise, the claim language “a third material which is a
reactive gas that chemically reacts with contaminants” is broad
enough to encompass the reaction between NH3 (i.e., the
claimed “third material”) and TiClx to form TiN and a Cl-
containing reaction by-product (i.e., the third step (C) of Eom
(Eom, p. 7)).
Similarly, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, our Rehearing Decision
equates the claim language “a third material which is a reactive gas that
chemically reacts with contaminants” with the third step (C) of Eom.
Furthermore, claim construction is a matter of law that we review de
novo. See In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Our claim construction supports the Examiner’s interpretation that Eom
teaches the following claim limitation recited in independent claim 1:
introducing within said process chamber, after the
completion of the reduction reaction between the first and
second process materials which deposited the metallic film on
the substrate in a solid state, a third material which is a reactive
gas that chemically reacts with contaminants in said process
chamber to release the contaminants from at least one of a
process chamber component or said substrate.
Thus, because the basic thrust of the rejection is the same, our claim
construction supports the Examiner’s interpretation, and we merely
elaborated on the Examiner’s position, Appellant has been afforded a fair
opportunity to respond to the rejection. See Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1303.
Appeal 2009-014119
Application 11/084,024

5

CONCLUSION
The Second Request for Rehearing is denied.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REHEARING DENIED

babc