Ex Parte Press et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311969412 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/969,412 01/04/2008 Patrick Press 2162.152700/DE0823 1800 10742 7590 09/24/2013 GLOBALFOUNDRIES INC. c/o Williams, Morgan & Amerson 10333 Richmond , Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77042 EXAMINER GARBER, CHARLES D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2812 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PATRICK PRESS, FRANK WIRBELEIT, JOE BLOOMQUIST, KAI FROHBERG and THOMAS FEUDEL ___________ Appeal 2011-003468 Application 11/969,412 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003468 Application 11/969,412 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 1-20. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to “methods of forming a semiconductor structure wherein ions are implanted into a material layer to modify an etch rate of the material layer in an etching process.” Appeal Brief 2. Illustrative Claim 1. A method of forming a semiconductor structure, comprising: providing a semiconductor substrate, a feature being formed over said substrate, said feature having a side surface and a top surface; forming a material layer over said substrate, said material layer covering at least said side surface of said feature; performing an ion implantation process using a noble gas ion to create an ion-implanted portion in said material layer; and performing a first etch process adapted to remove said ion-implanted portion in said material layer at a greater etch rate than other portions of said material layer. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Number 6,727,135 B2; issued April 27, 2004) and Kammler (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0003533 A1; published January 5, 2006). Answer 3-7. Appeal 2011-003468 Application 11/969,412 3 Claims 11-14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Kammler and Ishida (U.S. Patent Number 6,642,134 B2; issued November 4, 2003). Answer 7-9. Claims 15, 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Kammler and Liu (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0094195; published May 4, 2006). Answer 9-10. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Kammler and Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0038320; published February 27, 2003). Answer 10. Issue Do Lee and Kammler, either alone or in combination, disclose a method of forming a semiconductor structure wherein ions are implanted into a material layer to modify an etch rate of the material layer in an etching process? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue that Lee fails to teach or suggest the claimed method wherein a noble gas is used to create an ion-implanted portion in a material layer and the material layer is then etch at a greater rate than the other Appeal 2011-003468 Application 11/969,412 4 portions of the material layer. Appeal Brief 5. Appellants argue that not only does Lee fail to use a noble gas to ion-implant a material layer but Lee also fails to ion-implant the liner (material layer). Appeal Brief 6. Appellants argue that Lee ion-implant a substrate instead of the material layer because Lee’s ion-implantation process passes through the material layer into the substrate. Id. The Examiner responds that Lee was not relied upon to disclose a particular type of ion species. Answer 10. Examiner further admits that Lee’s implantation was intended to create doped source and drain regions in the substrate. Answer 10-11. The Examiner finds: Lee makes clear that regions of the layer 20 not protected from implantation by spacer 24 are etched while other regions protected from implantation are not. Lee recites in column 8, lines 23-25 that by using an etchant “the implanted regions of layer 20 are selectively etched leaving the unimplanted regions”. This is apparent in figures 2A through 2D as well. Figure 2B shows spacer 24 covering portions of the layer 20 and a doped region 11 created inside the spacer footprint by implantation across the entire device. Side wall spacers 24 are then removed in figure 2C. Subsequently, the regions of layer 20 not protected by spacer 24 and implanted, are etched away (higher etch rate) while the unimplanted portions of layer 20 remain (lower etch rate). Whether implantation ions remain in the layer 20 or largely pass through to the substrate in the region 20 leaving only a few behind as Appellant further argues is immaterial to the explicit teaching in Lee regarding “implanted” and “unimplanted” regions of layer 20 the etch away or remain. Answer 11. Appeal 2011-003468 Application 11/969,412 5 We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because the Examiner did not rely on Lee but rather Kammler for teaching noble gas type ion implantation. Id. The Examiner finds, “Kammler teaches an ion implantation process using noble gas ions (240, [0028]). In addition, Kammler teaches that the implantation is performed on a silicon nitride layer (250, [0032]), which is of the same material as the layer 20 disclosed by Lee.” Id. Appellants’ arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. 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; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” (Emphasis added) (citations omitted)). Subsequently we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 for the reasons stated above. DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of 1-20 are 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation