Ex Parte Sun et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 14, 2007

10611805 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 14, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LIZHONG SUN, FENG Q. LIU,
SIEW S. NEO, YAN WANG,
STAN D. TSAI, and
LIANG-YUH CHEN
____________

Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: December 14, 2007
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5-19. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

We AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a method of planarizing a surface of a
substrate. The process comprises a combination of mechanical polishing
and electrochemical polishing to remove conductive material from the
substrate. The removal is facilitated by applying a first higher positive
electric potential and then a second lower potential between an electrode and
polishing medium. The first positive potential is a pulsed potential with a
waveform. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of electrochemically and mechanically
planarizing a surface of a substrate, comprising:

(a) providing an electrically conductive solution and an
electrode in contact with the electrically conductive solution;

(b) disposing a polishing medium in contact with the
electrically conductive solution;

(c) positioning the substrate having a conductive material
formed thereon against the polishing medium so that the surface
of the substrate contacts the electrically conductive solution and
the polishing medium;

(d) applying a first positive potential between the
polishing medium and the electrode for a first time period to
remove conductive material from the substrate, wherein the first
positive potential is a pulsed potential with a waveform; and

(e) applying a second positive potential between the
polishing medium and the electrode for a second time period to
remove conductive material from the substrate, wherein the
second potential is lower than the first potential.

Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection:
2
Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

1. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as unpatentable over Uzoh (U.S. 5,911,619 issued Jun.
15, 1999);
2. The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Uzoh in view of Bard et al., Electrochemical Methods, 86
(1980);
3. The rejection of claims 10 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Uzoh.

II. DISCUSSION
Appellants’ contentions focus on step (d) of claim 1. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Uzoh “does not teach, show, or suggest the first
positive potential to be a pulsed potential with a waveform.” (Br. 9). The
Examiner, on the other hand, contends that Uzoh describes such a “pulsed
potential with a waveform” in disclosing a process of applying a pulsed DC
current, the claim being broad enough to encompass a single pulse of the
current as “a pulsed potential with a waveform.” (Answer 3 and 7-8).
According to Appellants, the Examiner’s interpretation does not reasonably
include a waveform (Reply Br. 2).
The dispositive issues on appeal arising from the contentions of
Appellants and the Examiner are: (1) does the claim language “pulsed
potential with a waveform” encompass a single pulse of a waveform; and (2)
does Uzoh describe each and every step of the planarizing method of claim 1
including applying a first positive potential which is “a pulsed potential with
a waveform?”
We answer both questions in the affirmative.
3
Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the following
Findings of Facts (FF):
1. The definition of a “waveform” is “the shape of a wave, a graph
obtained by plotting the instantaneous values of a periodic quantity
against the time.” waveform. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com
Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. (accessed: November 27,
2007).
2. Appellants’ use of the word “waveform” is consistent with the
common definition. The Specification graphically represents square
(Fig. 6), sinusoidal (Fig. 9A) and saw tooth (Fig. 9B) waveforms, and
contemplates the use of other waveform shapes (Specification ¶
0062).
3. The Specification describes the pulse modulation technique as
follows:
Using the electrical pulse modulation technique, a
waveform of a voltage signal 610 may be applied for a
first time period T1, followed by a zero voltage signal
620 for a second time period T2, as shown in Figure 6.
This pattern may have a single cycle or any number of
cycles as determined by the controller 312. . . . Although
a square waveform is illustrated in the figures, the
invention contemplates other types of waveforms, such
as sinusoidal (see Figure 9A) and saw tooth (see Figure
9B).

(Specification ¶ 0062.)

4. Uzoh describes a planarizing method combining chemical mechanical
planarization and electrochemical planarization (Uzoh, col. 2, ll. 42-
47). In the initial and intermediate stages, when, for example, a large
4
Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

amount of excess material exists in the layer 18, a relatively large
electrochemical current flows while the wafer is rotated and pressed
against a electrolytic polishing slurry (Uzoh, col. 4, ll. 42-54). Thus,
during the initial and intermediate stages, the first portions 18A (Fig.
5) of the layer 18 are removed substantially electrochemically (Uzoh,
col. 4, ll. 55-56). As the thickness of layer 18 is decreased, the current
is decreased or discontinued, and the chemical-mechanical action of
the slurry 74 on the rotating layer 18 becomes dominant to remove the
remaining portions 18B of layer 18 (Uzoh, col. 4, ll. 62-67; Fig. 5).
Boundaries for the initial, intermediate, and final stages of the method
are determined, for example, empirically depending upon the
composition of the layer 18 (Uzoh, col. 5, ll. 3-6).
5. The current of Uzoh, generated by a suitable source of potential, is a
waveform as shown in Figure 14 (Uzoh, col. 5, ll. 9-16). Figure 14
shows current vs. time waveforms for the electroetching current. This
Figure shows, among others, square waveform shapes and saw tooth
waveform shapes.
6. Uzoh describes applying a first potential, as a pulsed potential with a
waveform, to generate a first higher current as a waveform during
initial and intermediate stages of the planarization, and applying a
second lower potential to generate a lower current during the last
stages of the planarization (Uzoh, col. 4, l. 35 to col. 5, l. 32).
Where there is a dispute over the meaning of claim language, the
correct interpretation must be determined before considering the question of
anticipation. “[A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
5
Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant's specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). “[I]t is fundamental that claims are to be construed in the light of the
specifications and both are to be read with a view to ascertaining the
invention.” United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 49 (1966). The
specification is always highly relevant. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “The law of anticipation
does not require that the reference ‘teach’ what the subject patent teaches.
Assuming that a reference is properly ‘prior art,’ it is only necessary that the
claims under attack, as construed by the court, ‘read on’ something disclosed
in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or
‘fully met’ by it.” See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772
(Fed. Cir. 1983)
Applying the preceding legal principles to the above Factual Findings,
we find claim 1 anticipated by Uzoh.
Interpreting the claims as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with
the Specification, we determine that “pulsed potential with a waveform”
encompasses one pulse with a particular shape such as square, sinusoidal, or
saw tooth. Both the plain meaning and the Specification refer to the shape
of a wave as a waveform (FF 1-3). Appellants’ claim 1 does not require the
6
Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

presence of multiple pulses at the first potential, it only requires that the first
potential be “a pulsed potential with a waveform” (emphasis added). Such
an interpretation, while broad, is reasonable and consistent with both the
Specification and the plain meaning of the terms.
Comparing the process of claim 1 and that of Uzoh, we find that Uzoh
describes pulses with the same types of waveform shapes Appellants
describe in their Specification. Uzoh describes applying an electroetching
current at one magnitude during initial and intermediate stages of material
removal and at another lower magnitudes during final stages of removal (FF
4). According to the Uzoh, Figure 14 shows current vs. time waveforms for
the electroetching current i (FF 5). As illustrated in Figure 14, the current is
in the form of pulses in waveform shape, those pulses are generated by a
source of potential (FF 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood Uzoh as teaching the application of a pulsed potential with a
waveform for the duration of the initial and intermediate stages of removal.
The first applied potential of Uzoh has both the necessary waveform shape
and the necessary pulsed potential required by step (d) of claim 1 (FF 4 and
6).
Even if Appellants’ claims require applying multiple pulses at the first
potential, Uzoh would anticipate what is claimed. While Appellants contend
that Uzoh applies the first positive potential for only an instant of time, we
cannot agree. Uzoh applies a relatively large electrochemical current during
both the initial and intermediate stages of the process (FF 4). The current is
supplied for a time sufficient to reduce the thickness of layer 18A. The
potential is subsequently decreased during the last stage of the process, the
stage of removing the remaining portions 18B of layer 18 (FF 4). The initial
7
Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

and intermediate stages of planarization necessarily require more than one
pulse. This is evident from the fact that the boundaries for the initial,
intermediate, and final stages of the process must be determined; they are
not merely instantaneous (FF 4).
We find that the process described by Uzoh anticipates the process of
claim 1.
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claim 14 over Uzoh in
view of Bard, Appellants merely contend that Bard fails to cure the
deficiencies of Uzoh (Br. 11). We sustain the rejection for the reasons
discussed above.
With regard to the obviousness rejection of claims 10 and 19 over
Uzoh, the Examiner has added this rejection to address the additional
limitation of repeating steps (d) and (e) of claim 1. Appellants contend that,
“[w]hether or not repeating of steps is obvious, [Uzoh] still does not teach,
show or suggest” what is claimed (Br. 11-12). Appellants have not
presented a sufficiently specific additional argument for our review.1 We
sustain the rejection for the reasons discussed above.

III. DECISION
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13, 15-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and the rejections of claims 10, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

1 Notwithstanding this position, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had sufficient skill to repeat steps (d) and (e) until the desired objective
of removing the layer 18 is achieved.

8
Appeal 2007-3181
Application 10/611,805

IV. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tf/ls

PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
9