Ex Parte McAndrew et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 201412721362 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES J.F. McANDREW, CURTIS ANDERSON, and CHRISTIAN DUSSARRAT ____________ Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,3621 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6–12, and 14–29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is American Air Liquide, Inc. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed December 9, 2011, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed January 30, 2012, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed March 30, 2012. Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,362 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention is directed to a silylation compound and silylation chemistry delivery device for repairing insulating films with low dielectric constant (low-k) after being damaged due to processing during semiconductor manufacturing. Spec. 1:9–23; 2:1–2; 4:18–24. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A silylation compound of the formula R3SiL, wherein each R is independently selected from the group consisting of H, methyl, and ethyl; L is a nitrogen-containing ring selected from the group consisting of 1,2,3-triazole, piperidine, 1- methylpiperazine, pyrolidine, and pyrazole; and one nitrogen in the nitrogen-containing ring is bonded directly to the Si atom; and a total concentration of metal contaminants in the compound is less than 10 ppmw. App. Br. 13, Claims App’x. Independent claim 6 recites a silylation chemistry delivery device comprising a canister having inlet and outlet conduits and a silylating compound similar to that of claim 1. Independent claim 11 recites a method of repairing a dielectric film previously damaged by a processing step by contacting the film with a repair agent similar to the silylating compound of claim 1. The Rejections The Examiner maintains, and Appellants request review of the following ground of rejections: 1) Rejection of claims 1–3 and 27–283 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 3 The Examiner’s statement of this rejection omits claim 27. However, the body of this rejection clearly indicates claim 27 was intended to be included. Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,362 3 unpatentable over Yamamoto4 in view of Holmes,5 as evidenced by the ChemDraw data sheets;6 2) Rejection of claims 6–10, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stauffer7 in view of Yamamoto and Holmes; 3) Rejection of claims 11, 12,8 15–20, 22–24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gaynor9 in view of Yamamoto, Holmes, and Sinapi,10 as evidenced by the ChemDraw data sheets; 4) Rejection of claims 21 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of prior art as applied in rejection (3) above, adding Dimitrakopoulos;11 and 5) Rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of prior art as applied in rejection (3) above, adding Bonilla.12 Moreover, given that Yamamoto teaches trimethyl compounds, it is readily apparent that Yamamoto’s compounds provide that at least two of the R are methyl. Further, Appellants identify claim 27 as rejected in the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief. App. Br. 16. Accordingly, we hold the Examiner’s omission of claim 27 from the rejection statement to be harmless error. 4 US 2004/0077886 A1, published April 22, 2004. 5 US 4,808,511, issued February 28, 1989. 6 Data sheets for N-trimethylsilylpiperidine and N-trimethylsilylpyrrolidine compounds as generated by ChemDraw Ultra software (undated). 7 US 5,399,200, issued March 21, 1995. 8 The Examiner’s statement of this rejection includes cancelled claim 13. 9 US 2005/0158884 A1, published July 21, 2005. 10 US 2008/0241499 A1, published October 2, 2008. 11 US 2006/0189133 A1, published August 24, 2006. 12 US 2007/0249156 A1, published October 25, 2007. Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,362 4 ANALYSIS Rejection 1 Appellants do not separately argue the claims included in this rejection. We therefore select independent claim 1 to address Appellants’ arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 2, 3, 27, and 28 stand or fall with claim 1. The Examiner finds Yamamoto discloses two silylation compounds, N-trimethylsilylpiperidine and N-trimethylsilylpyrrolidine, meeting the formula, R3SiL, as recited in the claims (Ans. 4–5). The Examiner acknowledges Yamamoto does not disclose the total concentration of metal contaminants in the compound is less than 10 ppmw or less than 1 ppmw (id. at 5). However, the Examiner finds Holmes is in the same field of endeavor as Yamamoto and discloses a silylation process wherein the silylation agent should not introduce metal impurities into an electronic device that act as a dopant (id.). Therefore, the Examiner determines it would have been obvious to reduce the metal impurities of Yamamoto’s silylation agent to avoid unwanted dopant (id.). Further, the Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to optimize the level of purity of Yamamoto’s silylation agent to the claimed purity range (id., citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980); and In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Appellants argue Yamamoto is non-analogous prior art to both Holmes and the disclosed invention (App. Br. 6–7). Appellants contend that the Examiner’s proposed combination of Yamamoto and Holmes would render Yamamoto unsuitable for its intended purpose of forming a silicon dioxide supported titanium catalyst (id. at 7–8). Appellants further argue the Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,362 5 Examiner’s distinction between compound and composition “is post hoc justification” for modifying Yamamoto. Reply Br. 5. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. As the Examiner finds, Appellants’ claims are directed to a silylation compound, and not a composition (Ans. 14–15).13 Appellants neither assert nor direct us to any evidence in the record that Yamamoto’s silylation compound, nor the silylating agent comprising the compound, has metal impurities. Moreover, during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984). This broadest reasonable interpretation recognizes that before a patent is granted the claims may be readily amended as a part of the examination process and that an applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove any ambiguity in claim meaning by making an amendment. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, we have no difficulty resolving that Yamamoto teaches the silylation compound of Appellants’ claims.14 13 In chemistry, a “compound” is defined to be “a pure substance composed of two or more elements whose composition is constant.” See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compound, last visited October 29, 2014. On the other hand, a “composition” is defined to be an aggregate material formed from two or more substances such as “a composition of silver and tin.” See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/composition, last visited October 29, 2014. 14 The Examiner’s reliance on Holmes to suggest that metal contaminants in a composition comprising Yamamoto’s silylating compound should be avoided does not alter the Examiner’s finding that the claim is directed to a compound, and that there is no evidence in the record showing that Yamamoto’s compound has impurities. Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,362 6 Rejection 2 Appellants do not separately argue the claims included in this rejection. We therefore select independent claim 6 to address Appellants’ arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claims 7–10 and 29 stand or fall with claim 6. The Examiner finds Stauffer discloses a silylation chemistry delivery device including a canister reservoir having an inlet conduit and an outlet conduit, and containing a silylating agent (Ans. 6). The Examiner acknowledges that Stauffer does not teach the claimed silylation compound, R3SiL, as claimed (id.). However, the Examiner finds Yamamoto teaches the silylation compounds, N-trimethylsilylpiperidine and N- trimethylsilylpyrrolidine (id.). Therefore, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to use Stauffer’s silylation chemistry delivery device for delivery of Yamamoto’s silylation compounds in order to provide better control and handling of the compounds. Id. at 7. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Yamamoto is in the same field of endeavor. App. Br. 9. We do not find this argument persuasive. A reference is analogous art if it is either in the field of the applicant’s endeavor, or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,362 7 Claim 6 merely recites a silylation chemistry delivery device, without any limitation on the purpose of the silylation. We also note that, unlike claim 1, claim 6 does not recite that the concentration of metal contaminants in the compound (or composition) is less than 10 ppmw. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that Yamamoto’s silylation compounds must be stored and delivered to the catalyst, and would look for devices for storing and delivering silylation compounds such as taught in Stauffer. Appellants fail to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to solutions such as Stauffer for storing and delivery of Yamamoto’s silylation compounds. Accordingly, we will sustain this rejection. Rejection 3 The Examiner finds Gaynor discloses a method for repairing a dielectric film by contacting the film with a silylating agent to effect repair of the film by attaching silyl groups to the dielectric surface (Ans. 8–9). The Examiner acknowledges that Gaynor’s silylating agent does not have the claimed formula, R3SiL (id. at 9). However, the Examiner finds Yamamoto discloses a method of silylation using either N-trimethylsilylpiperidine or N- trimethylsilylpyrrolidine (id. at 9–10). Therefore, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to substitute Yamamoto’s silylation compounds in Gaynor’s silylation process to repair dielectric films (id. at 10). Appellants primarily argue that the Examiner’s substitution is in error because the equivalency of Yamamoto’s silylation compounds for use in Gaynor’s process was not recognized in the prior art (App. Br. 10–11). Appellants contend that Yamamoto’s silylation process is for heightening Appeal 2012-007449 Application 12/721,362 8 the activity of a titanium-containing silicon dioxide catalyst, whereas Gaynor’s silylation process is for repairing of dielectric films in electronic devices (id. at 6–8, 10; Reply Br. 7). We agree. Although the Examiner asserts that Yamamoto’s silylation compounds are well-known in the art, nowhere does the Examiner establish knowledge in the art that Yamamoto’s silylation compounds were known to repair dielectric films in electronic devices. As the Examiner’s rejection is premised on the erroneous finding that the equivalency of Yamamoto’s and Gaynor’s silylation compounds was well-known in the art, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of Appellants’ claimed process. Accordingly, we will not sustain this rejection. DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–3, 6–10, and 27–29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. However, for the reasons given above and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 11, 12, 14–26 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART cdc Notice of References Cited Application/Control No. 12/721,362 Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination James J.F. McAndrew et al. Examiner Yasser Abdelaziez Art Unit 2800 Page 1 of 1 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS * DOCUMENT NO. DATE NAME CLASS SUBCLASS DOCUMENT SOURCE ** APS OTHER A B C D E F G H I J K L M FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS * DOCUMENT NO. DATE COUNTRY NAME CLASS SUBCLASS DOCUMENT SOURCE ** APS OTHER N O P Q R S T NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * DOCUMENT (Including Author, Title Date, Source, and Pertinent Pages) DOCUMENT SOURCE ** APS OTHER U Definition of “compound” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compound, last visited October 29, 2014. V Definition of “composition” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/composition, last visited October 29, 2014 W X *A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Section 707.05(a).) **APS encompasses any electronic search i.e. text, image, and Commercial Databases. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office PTO-892 (Rev. 03-98Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation