10971561 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2008)

Ex Parte Sin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 25, 2008

10971561 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 25, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte GARRETT H. SIN, WINSTON Y. SU, and SIDNEY P. HUEY ____________ Appeal 2007-4446 Application 10/971,561 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Decided: March 25, 2008 ____________ Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, BRADLEY R. GARRIS, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-13, 18, and 19.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 Although claims 1-20 were finally rejected by the Examiner, Appellants expressly state that "[t]he rejection of claims 14-17, and 20 is not appealed" (App. Br. 5). Appeal 2007-4446 Application 10/971,561 We AFFIRM. Appellants claim a method for processing a substrate which includes a dielectric material with a polysilicon material disposed thereon comprising polishing or planarizing the polysilicon material with a high topography selective polishing composition such as a ceria based abrasive composition, and polishing the polysilicon material with a material selective composition such as a silicon based abrasive composition (claim 1). Representative claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method for processing a substrate, comprising: positioning the substrate in a polishing apparatus having one or more platens and polishing articles disposed on the one or more platens, and the substrate comprising a dielectric material and polysilicon material disposed thereon; polishing the polysilicon material with a high topography selective polishing composition; and polishing the polysilicon material with a material selective composition. The references set forth below are relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of obviousness: Jin 6,435,942 B1 Aug. 20, 2002 Bonner US 2003/0036339 A1 Feb. 20, 2003 Ko US 2003/0153189 A1 Aug. 14, 2003 Claims 1-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Ko. 2 Appeal 2007-4446 Application 10/971,561 Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over "Jin in view of Bonner" (Ans. 8).2 We will sustain each of these rejections for the reasons expressed in the Answer and below. The § 103 rejection of claims 1-12, 18, and 19 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in this art to modify Jin's method by effecting the initial polishing or planarizing of patentee's polysilicon material with a high topography selective polishing composition, namely, the ceria based composition of Ko in order to thereby achieve the benefits of removing high topography features at a faster rate than low topography features as taught by Ko (Ans. 5-6). Appellants argue that "there is no motivation or suggestion disclosed in Ko . . . or Jin . . . to replace the high material selectivity composition of the first polishing step of Jin . . . with the composition that removes polysilicon from fields faster than trenches of Ko 2 Claim 13 depends from claim 9 which is rejected over Jin in view of Ko. Therefore, it is apparent that the rejection of dependent claim 13 should be over Jin in view of Ko and further in view of Bonner. The Examiner's failure to include Ko in the statement of rejection of claim 13 has not prejudiced Appellants' right to procedural due process since the arguments advanced against the claim 13 rejection include those made against the rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 as well as arguments against the Examiner's proposed combination of the Jin and Bonner teachings (App. Br. 16). Under these circumstances, we consider the failure of the Examiner to be harmless. 3 Appeal 2007-4446 Application 10/971,561 . . . to achieve the claimed invention" (Br. 12).3 This argument is unpersuasive. We fully agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for an artisan to effect Jin's first polishing or planarizing step with the ceria based composition of Ko in order to obtain the benefits expressly taught by Ko to attend use of a composition which removes fields at a faster rate than trenches (i.e., high topography selectivity) (Ko paras. [0011], [0013]). We acknowledge Appellants' observation that Jin's initial polishing composition is disclosed as a material selective composition (App. Br. 12; Jin col. 7, ll. 24-40). However, this fact does not forestall an obviousness conclusion. This is because Ko's composition possesses material selectivity (p. 4 para. [0049]) as well as the above discussed topography selectivity. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Figs. 3A-3C of Jin evince that patentee's initial polishing composition possesses topography as well as material selectivity (Ans. 10). Finally, the Examiner's obviousness conclusion relating to the use of a ceria based composition in Jin's initial polishing step is reinforced by Jin's teaching that “[h]ard and large abrasive 3 In addition to this argument, the Appeal Brief contains statements that the combination of Jin and Ko does not teach, show, or suggest a list of features which constitutes merely the reiterated limitations for each of claims 1, 9, 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, and 19 (App. Br. 12-15). However, these statements merely point out what is recited in each of the afore-noted claims. According to 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004), "[a] statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim." For this reason and because the only argument advanced against the here rejected claims is the argument quoted above, we will focus on the broadest rejected claim, which is independent claim 1, in assessing the merits of the rejection under consideration. All other claims involved in this rejection will stand or fall with representative claim 1. 4 Appeal 2007-4446 Application 10/971,561 particles (e.g., irregularly-shaped CeO2[i.e., ceria]) may be used for faster removal rate and planarization rate at breakthrough or main polish step till endpoint” (col. 6, ll. 34-36). Concerning the above discussed point that the applied prior art polishing compositions possess both topography as well as material selectivity, Appellants argue that, "[a]s defined in the specification, material selectivity is mutually exclusive of high topography selectivity" (Reply Br. 3). We cannot agree. The specification disclosure referred to by Appellants (i.e., Spec. 7, para. [0023]) simply defines material selectivity and topography selectivity as the preferential removal of respectively (1) one material compared to another and (2) higher topography features compared to lower ones. These definitions in no way preclude a composition from possessing the characteristics of both material selectivity and topography selectivity. Indeed, as previously indicated, Ko teaches that both such characteristics are possessed by a ceria based polishing composition which is encompassed by Appellants’ claimed high topography selective composition (see claims 1, 5). For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-12, 18, and 19 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Ko. The § 103 rejection of claim 13 It is the Examiner's basic position that Bonner evinces it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in this art to practice the initial polishing or planarizing step of Jin's method, as modified above, on a substrate wherein the difference between high topography features and low 5 Appeal 2007-4446 Application 10/971,561 topography features is between about 500 Ǻ and about 5000 Ǻ as required by claim 13 (Ans. 8-9). In response, Appellants contend that "[t]here is no motivation or suggestion disclosed to combine the Bonner . . . teaching of features on a substrate being between about 1000 Ǻ and about 6000 Ǻ with the Jin . . . two-step high selectivity, low selectivity process to achieve the claimed invention" (App. Br. 16). This contention is without persuasive merit. Appellants do not seem to appreciate the fundamental basis for the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. In essence, this conclusion is based on the Examiner's undisputed finding that Bonner evinces that the prior art includes substrates which possess the high and low topography differences required by the rejected claim. Based on this finding, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for an artisan to process such a prior art substrate with the method of Jin when modified as previously discussed. The "motivation" for processing such a prior art substrate would be the same as for processing the substrates disclosed in Jin, namely, to obtain an effectively polished substrate suitable for integrated circuit fabrication (Jin, Abstract, cols. 1-2). In light of the foregoing, we also sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 13. 6 Appeal 2007-4446 Application 10/971,561 Conclusion The decision of the Examiner if 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). AFFIRMED cam PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP 3040 POST OAK BLVD, SUITE 1500 HOUSTON, TX 77056 7