Ex Parte Samoilov

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 21, 2019

13206088 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/206,088 08/09/2011
55649 7590 05/23/2019
Moser Taboada/ Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arkadii V. Samoilov
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
APPM10318Dl 3139
EXAMINER
SONG, MATTHEW J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2019 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARKADII V. SAMOILOV
Appeal2018-005960
Application 13/206,088
Technology Center 1700
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-3 and 5-13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In our Decision, we refer to the Specification ("Spec.") of Application
13/206,088 (the "'088 Application") filed August 9, 2011; the Final Office
Action dated May 18, 201 7 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed November
9, 2017 ("App. Br."); and the Examiner's Answer dated February 7, 2018
("Ans."). Appellant did not file a Reply Brief.
Appeal2018-005960
Application 13/206,088
The subject matter at issue relates to methods of epitaxial film
formation using a cluster tool in semiconductor device manufacturing. Spec.
1, 11. 24--26. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of epitaxial film formation comprising:
prior to epitaxial film formation, pre-cleaning a substrate
in a first processing chamber utilizing a first gas;
adapting a second processing chamber to use a gas other
than the first gas;
transferring the substrate from the first processing
chamber to the second processing chamber through a transfer
chamber under a vacuum; and
forming an epitaxial layer on the substrate in the second
processing chamber without utilizing the first gas and without
exposing the second processing chamber to the first gas,
wherein the first gas is incompatible with at least one gas used
in the second processing chamber in that a reaction between the
first gas and the at least one gas adversely affects the forming of
the epitaxial layer.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Mukai
Prall et al. ("Prall")
Xu et al. ("Xu")
Skotnicki et al.
("Skotnicki")
Bauer et al.
("Bauer")
us 5,120,394
us 5,637,518
us 5,780,357
US 2004/0266112 Al
US 2006/0234504 Al
2
June 9, 1992
June 10, 1997
July 14, 1998
Dec. 30, 2004
Oct. 19, 2006
Appeal2018-005960
Application 13/206,088
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)2 : (1) claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11-13 over Prall in view of Xu and
Bauer; (2) claims 2 and 9 over Prall in view of Xu and Bauer, and further in
view of Skotnicki; and (3) claims 7 and 10 over Prall in view of Xu and
Bauer, and further in view of Mukai. Final Act. 2-7.
OPINION
Appellant relies on the same arguments made for patentability of
claim 1 for patentability of claims 2, 3, 5-13. App. Br. 9. We select claim 1
as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 2, 3, and
5-13 stand or fall with claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Prall teaches a method of
epitaxial deposition of silicon comprising cleaning a wafer utilizing H2 gas
and thereafter transferring the wafer substrate to a separate chamber of a
cluster tool without breaking vacuum and depositing monocrystalline silicon
on the wafer substrate. Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g., Prall col. 4, 11. 21-26). The
Examiner finds that Prall teaches separate, isolated chambers for hydrogen
gas cleaning and for deposition. Ans. 13. Prall describes using a cluster tool
such as an Applied Materials Centura system. Prall col. 4, 11. 23-24. The
Examiner finds that Xu teaches a commercially available Applied Materials
Centura cluster tool typically includes a central transfer chamber onto which
one or more process chambers can be bolted. Final Act. 3. Each chamber
2 Because this application was filed before the March 16, 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
3
Appeal2018-005960
Application 13/206,088
may be maintained at its own vacuum pressure and atmosphere independent
of other chambers. Xu col. 8, 11. 65----67. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Prall by using the transfer chambers and
isolation valves of Xu to transfer substrates while isolating the chambers
independently to maintain desired process atmospheres in each chamber.
Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds that Bauer teaches selective epitaxial deposition,
wherein a substrate is heated under a flow of hydrogen gas ( a first gas),
which is subsequently stopped and silicon is deposited on the substrate using
trisilane, Ch, and non-hydrogen carrier gas. Final Act. 4. The Examiner
also finds that Bauer teaches that Ch reacts with H2 to produce HCl, which
is undesirable. Id. The Examiner finds that Bauer teaches using non-
hydrogen gas with chlorine and trisilane deposition gases to avoid
production of HCl, and therefore enhance deposition rates. Ans. 13. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the process
performed in a cluster tool of Prall as modified by Xu to use deposition
gases that includes a non-hydrogen carrier gas, as taught by Bauer, to
enhance deposition rates for epitaxial layers in a selective epitaxial growth
process. Final Act. 4.
In view of the Examiner's findings, Appellant's arguments for
patentability over the cited art are not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant argues, "Prall teaches that multiple processing steps
( cleaning, deposition, and annealing) are preferably performed in one
processing chamber." App. Br. 6.
Prall states, "[ o ]ne preferred technique for conducting such processing
is to utilize a single rapid thermal chemical vapor deposition reactor for both
4
Appeal2018-005960
Application 13/206,088
the deposition and cleaning steps, with the substrate not being removed from
the reactor between steps." Prall col. 4, 11. 17-21. However, Prall also
discloses that, in the alternative, "such processing can be conducted in
separate chambers of a cluster tool apparatus without breaking vacuum,"
enabling "processing and transfer of wafers between chambers without
exposure to oxidizing or other contaminating conditions." Prall col. 4, 11.
21-26. Appellant's argument thus fails to take into account all the teachings
of Prall. See In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976) ("[A]ll
disclosure of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be
considered."). When the entirety of Prall's disclosure is considered, the
reference unambiguously discloses using separate chambers for each of the
cleaning and deposition steps, refuting Appellant's position.
Appellant contends that "Prall does not disclose that a first gas
utilized in a first processing chamber ... should not be used to form an
epitaxial layer in a second processing chamber and/ or should not be exposed
to the second processing chamber." App. Br. 6.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole. See id. Appellant's argument regarding what Prall does not teach
attacks Prall while ignoring the disclosures in Bauer. Bauer teaches an
advantage to employing non-hydrogen carrier gas (rather than hydrogen gas)
in a trisilane/halogen-containing etchant gas deposition system. Bauer ,r
132. Bauer teaches that desirable reactions are depressed by generation of
5
Appeal2018-005960
Application 13/206,088
HCl due to the presence of H2 carrier gas. Bauer ,r 145. Considering all of
the cited references in combination demonstrates that Appellant's argument
is not persuasive of reversible error.
Appellant argues that Xu does not make up for Prall's deficiencies.
App. Br. 6. More specifically, Appellant contends that Xu does not disclose
"pre-cleaning substrate in a first processing chamber utilizing a first gas"
and "forming epitaxial layer on the substrate in the second processing
chamber without utilizing the first gas and without exposing the second
processing chamber to the first gas." Id. at 6-7. Here, again, Appellant
argues the disclosure of Xu in isolation from the disclosures of Prall and
Bauer. See Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. Such argument does not overcome the
obviousness rejection at least because the Examiner finds the quoted
limitations are taught by Prall ("pre-cleaning substrate in a first processing
chamber utilizing a first gas") and Bauer ("forming epitaxial layer on the
substrate in the second processing chamber without utilizing the first gas and
without exposing the second processing chamber to the first gas.").
Appellant fails to persuade us of reversible error.
According to Appellant, Bauer discloses, "both hydrogen and chlorine
gases ... can be used in the same reaction chamber," pointing to Bauer
Example 1, but claim 1 recites that the first and second gases are
incompatible in that a reaction between the first gas and the second gas
adversely affects the forming of the epitaxial layer. App. Br. 7. Appellant
argues that Bauer discloses that hydrogen can be used in a subsequent
processing chamber. Id. at 7-8.
Appellant focuses on some statements in Bauer that support the
argument, but ignores other statements that do not. It is the entirety of the
6
Appeal2018-005960
Application 13/206,088
reference's disclosure that we consider. See In re Fritch, 972 F .2d 1260,
1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (explaining that "[i]t is well settled that a prior art
reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the
art")). Example 1 is but one embodiment disclosed in Bauer. More broadly,
Bauer teaches, "a non-hydrogen carrier gas is preferably employed" in place
of hydrogen gas in the deposition step. Bauer ,r 131. Bauer also teaches
that desirable reactions are depressed by generation of HCl due to the
presence of hydrogen carrier gas. Bauer ,r 145. Bauer thus suggests that one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not have used
hydrogen gas in the second processing chamber. As the Examiner explains,
use of hydrogen gas in the second processing chamber would defeat the
advantages of using a cluster tool with separate cleaning and deposition
chambers, vacuum sealed such that there would have been no need after
cleaning to remove native oxide in the second processing chamber. Ans. 10.
In addition, use of hydrogen gas in the second processing chamber would
have depressed desirable reactions. See Bauer ,r 145.
For the reasons given above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. For
these same reasons, and because Appellant does not argue separately for
their patentability, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-13.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-13 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)(l)(iv) (2015).
AFFIRMED
7