10871242 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 13, 2010)

Ex Parte Rhodes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesSep 13, 2010

10871242 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 13, 2010)

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. 10/871,242 06/18/2004 Howard E. Rhodes MCRO:136-1/95-0181.01 3082 7590 09/13/2010 Michael G. Fletcher FLETCHER YODER P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER LINDSAY JR, WALTER LEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2812 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/13/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HOWARD E. RHODES and STEVEN D. CUMMINGS ____________ Appeal 2009-004578 Application 10/871,242 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-004578 Application 10/871,242 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-28. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We reverse. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of forming an interconnect structure having, inter alia, a barrier layer deposited directly on a conductive reactive layer. See Appeal Brief 3. Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows: 1. A method of forming an interconnect structure, comprising the acts of: depositing a single conductive reactive layer directly on a substrate; depositing a single conductive barrier layer directly on the conductive reactive layer; depositing a single conductive layer directly on the conductive barrier layer; and depositing an anti-reflective layer on the conductive layer wherein the act of depositing a conductive reactive layer comprises the act of depositing the conductive reactive layer directly on a conductive contact portion of the substrate. The Rejections Claims 1-8, 10, 12-16, 18, 20-26, and 28 are rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 5,534,463; July 9, 1996). Claims 9, 17, and 27 are rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee. Appeal 2009-004578 Application 10/871,242 3 ISSUE Does Lee disclose the sequence of layer formation in an interconnect structure wherein a single conductive barrier layer is deposited directly on a conductive reactive layer? PRINCIPLES OF LAW The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner can satisfy this test by showing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Lee does not teach the sequences recited by the independent claims 1, 9, 12, 17, 20, and 27. Appeal Brief 12-15. Specifically, Appellants argue that Lee fails to disclose the sequence recited in claims 1 and 9, “depositing a single conductive barrier layer directly on the conductive reactive layer;” the sequence recited in claims 12 and 17, “depositing a single conductive barrier layer comprising tantalum nitride directly on the conductive reactive layer;” and the sequence recited in claims 20 and 27, “depositing a first tantalum nitride layer directly on the tantalum layer.” Id. We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive, and we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claims. Appeal 2009-004578 Application 10/871,242 4 The Examiner admits that Lee, in Figure 7, fails to disclose the deposition of a conductive reactive layer directly on the conductive contact portion of Lee’s substrate. See Answer 7. However, the Examiner relies upon Lee’s Figure 8, which discloses an embodiment wherein the semiconductor substrate 51 having an impurity-doped region 53 at the bottom of a contact hole is defined by an insulating layer 54 wherein the impurity-doped region 53 has a reactive layer 57. Id. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Lee by forming a conductive reactive layer directly on a conductive contact portion of Lee’s substrate when Figures 8 and 9 are combined in order to reduce the deterioration of the reliability of the metal layer of the device. See Answer 7-8. The Examiner’s rationale for combining the figures of Lee does not address the deficiency of Lee. Lee is silent in regard to the sequence of the deposition of the layers, as Appellants argued, and the Examiner fails to indicate where Lee discloses the claimed sequence of deposition. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20- 28 for the reasons stated above. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s 35 USC § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12-16, 18, 20-26, and 28 over Lee. We reverse the Examiner’s 35 USC § 103(a) rejection of claims 9, 17, and 27 over Lee. ORDER REVERSED Appeal 2009-004578 Application 10/871,242 5 babc Michael G. Fletcher FLETCHER YODER P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289