Ex Parte Rueger et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 201612476059 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2016) 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. 12/476,059 06/01/2009 Neal Rueger MI22-4043 4700 21567 7590 02/12/2016 Wells St. John P.S. 601 W. Main Avenue Suite 600 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER AU, BAC H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2822 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/12/2016 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 NEAL RUEGER and JOHN SMYTHE __________ Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 Technology Center 2800 ___________ Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–13 and 16–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Representative claim 1 is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief dated July 19, 2013 (“Br.”). The limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A method of forming a layer of Ru material by performing an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process in a process chamber of a process tool, the method comprising: Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 2 [1] identifying a target characteristic for said layer of Ru material, the target characteristic being selected from the group consisting of crystallinity and resistivity; [2] determining a precursor pulse time for introducing a precursor gas into said process chamber during said ALD process to produce said target characteristic in said layer of Ru material; and [3] performing said ALD process that comprises a plurality of steps wherein said precursor gas is introduced into said chamber for said determined precursor pulse time to thereby form said layer of material, the method being performed in an absence of any added oxygen. Br. 16 (emphasis and brackets added). The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows: (1) claims 1–13 and 16–20 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness- type double patenting over claims 1–11 of US 7,557,047 to Rueger et al. in view of Aaltonen et al.;1 (2) claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Gandikota et al.;2 (3) claims 10, 11, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Koh et al.;3 (4) claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Gandikota, and further in view of Kawano et al.;4 (5) claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Koh, and further in view of Kawano; 1 US 2005/0020060 A1, published January 27, 2005 (“Aaltonen”). 2 US 2006/0128150 A1, published June 15, 2006 (“Gandikota”). 3 US 2005/0037154 A1, published February 17, 2005 (“Koh”). 4 US 2003/0088116 A1, published May 8, 2003 (“Kawano”). Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 3 (6) claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Gandikota, and further in view of George et al.;5 and (7) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Aaltonen in view of Gandikota, and further in view of Forbes et al.6 The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s factual findings or legal conclusions in the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1–13 and 16–20. See Br. 9 (indicating that “[r]esponse to the double patenting rejection is being postponed until an indication of allowability of the subject matter of the claims is received”). Therefore, the rejection is sustained for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer dated October 22, 2013 (“Ans.”). As for the remaining rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), those rejections are also sustained for the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We add the following for emphasis. B. DISCUSSION 1. Claim 1 The Appellants argue that Aaltonen does not teach or suggest the order of steps recited in claim 1 and does not provide motive for pre-selecting resistivity. Br. 9. There is no dispute on this record that Aaltonen does not expressly disclose the steps of (1) identifying a target characteristic (i.e., crystallinity or resistivity) for a layer of Ru material; (2) determining a precursor pulse time for introducing a precursor gas into a process chamber during an ALD process to produce the target 5 US 2005/0012975 A1, published January 20, 2005 (“George”). 6 US 2005/0032342 A1, published February 10, 2005 (“Forbes”). Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 4 characteristic; and (3) performing the ALD process wherein the precursor gas is introduced into the chamber for the determined precursor pulse time to form the layer of material. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Aaltonen expressly discloses a relationship between the pulse time of a Ru precursor and the resistivity of the Ru thin film formed. See Ans. 16; Aaltonen 6, Table 1 (disclosing resistivities of Ru thin films produced by specific precursor pulse times). The Examiner finds: One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly have relied on the data presented by Aaltonen to perform the claimed method of claim 1 . . . [and] would have certainly been motivated to form a layer of Ru material having a desired (i.e., target) resistivity in order to obtained [sic, obtain] an electrode with the desired conductive level and performance. Ans. 16. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it desirable to use a previously determined precursor pulse time, as disclosed in Aaltonen Table 1, to form a Ru thin film having a known resistivity thereby saving time and money. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Significantly, the Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s factual findings. Claim 1 also recites that the method recited in claim 1 is “performed in an absence of any added oxygen.” Br. 16. The Examiner relies on Gandikota as disclosing reducing agents other than oxygen. Ans. 10. The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner’s findings as to Gandikota. Rather, the Appellants argue that Aaltonen teaches away from using reducing agents other than oxygen. Br. 10. We disagree. Aaltonen expressly discloses that known reducing agents in ALD processes include, for example, hydrogen. Aaltonen ¶ 9; Ans. 17. To the extent that Aaltonen discloses a Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 5 preference for oxygen (Aaltonen ¶ 18), as stated in In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976), “all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered.” See also Ans. 17. 2. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites the additional step of “establishing a ligand removal environment within said chamber.” Br. 17. The Appellants argue that Aaltonen “burns the ligands into carbon oxides and water rather than removing them intact.” Br. 11 (citing Aaltonen ¶ 18). Suffice it to say that claim 7 does not exclude burning the ligands as a means for removal. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (patentability may not be based on limitations not appearing in the claims). 3. Claim 10 Claim 10 recites a method of forming a layer of Ru material by performing an ALD process in a process chamber comprising, inter alia, the steps of evacuating the chamber during a first time period; introducing a precursor gas into the chamber during a second time period; evacuating the chamber during a third time period; and generating a plasma within the chamber by applying RF power to the chamber during a fourth time period, “no RF power being applied during the first, second and third time periods.” Br. 18 (emphasis added). The Appellants argue that “[t]he cited combination of Koh and Aaltonen does not suggest the claim 10 recited fourth time period having plasma without precursor.” Br. 11 (emphasis added). However, claim 10 does not exclude a precursor during the fourth time period. See Self, 671 F.2d at 1348 (patentability may not be based on limitations not appearing in the claims). The Appellants also argue: Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 6 [T]he time periods of Koh do not include any evacuation and therefore do not correspond to the first[,] second and third time periods of present claim 10. Nor does Koh contribute toward suggesting the recited application of plasma during a fourth time period after an evacuation time period. Br. 12. To the contrary, Koh Figure 5B illustrates an embodiment of the invention wherein an evacuation time period is included before and after introduction of second source gas 404a and before application of plasma 440a. See also Koh ¶ 71. 4. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein said target characteristic varies within a thickness of said layer of material.” Br. 17. The Examiner finds George teaches this limitation. Ans. 14. The Appellants argue: George does not teach or suggest any Ru material and only varies resistivity by varying the composition of the layer, not by varying the precursor pulse times as recited in the instant claim. Br. 13 (emphasis added). It is of no moment that George may not disclose a Ru material. The Examiner relies on George to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “a target characteristic can be substantially uniform or can vary throughout a thickness of [a] layer of material.” Ans. 14; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”). Contrary to the Appellant’s argument, claim 6 does not recite that the target characteristic is varied within a thickness of the layer by varying the precursor pulse times. See Self, 671 F.2d at 1348 (patentability may not be based on limitations not appearing in the claims). Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 7 The Appellants also argue that the Examiner “provides no motivation for substituting one method for another, merely indicating the obviousness of doing so” and the Examiner “recites advantages for which there is no support given.” Br. 13. The Examiner makes the following factual findings and legal conclusions: George . . . discloses and makes obvious where a target characteristic can be substantially uniform or can vary throughout a thickness of said layer of material. It would have been obvious to modify Aaltonen to provide wherein said target characteristic varies within a thickness of said layer of material. Because both references teach methods of providing films of material using an atomic layer deposition process, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable results of forming films with the required profile of the desired characteristic by accurately controlling and varying the deposition process within a layer or over thin adjacent layers within a film. Ans. 14 (emphasis added). Suffice it to say that the Appellants have not directly addressed the Examiner’s factual findings or legal conclusions and shown reversible error therein. 5. Claim 9 Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites the additional step of “generating a plasma within said chamber by applying RF power to a showerhead within said chamber.” Br. 17 (emphasis added). The Appellants recognize that the Examiner relies on Forbes “as disclosing applying RF power to a showerhead.” Br. 13. However, the Appellants argue that the Examiner’s “indication of obviousness due to improved resulting film is not supported by the references or by any factual basis presented in the Action.” Br. 14. Appeal 2014-002856 Application 12/476,059 8 The Appellants’ argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Forbes expressly discloses that a showerhead is capacitively coupled with an RF plasma source in an ALD reactor and is “for uniform distribution of the reactant gases in the reactor.” Forbes ¶ 34; see also Ans. 14. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that uniform distribution of reactant gases would improve the deposited film quality. Ans. 15. The Appellants have failed to establish otherwise. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner 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)(1). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation