Ex Parte Sun et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 19, 2012

11728492 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2012)

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.
11/728,492 03/26/2007 Zhaoli Sun MI22-3539 3455
21567 7590 10/22/2012
Wells St. John P.S.
601 West First Avenue
Suite 1300
Spokane, WA 99201-3828
EXAMINER
GOODWIN, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2818
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2012 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 ZHAOLI SUN, JUN LIU, and DAPENG WANG
____________

Appeal 2011-006220
Application 11/728,492
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before, JAMESON LEE, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006220
Application 11/728,492

2

SUMMARY

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 20-22, 31-35, 38-40, 43, 45-49 and 52. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S. C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention concerns a method of forming an electrically
conductive plug and alleviating defects when forming an electrically conductive
plug using an electrically conductive material to cover an opening, removing some
of the electrically conductive material and filling the remaining volume of the
opening with an electrically conductive metal material different from the
electrically conductive material. (See, Abstract).
Claim 20 is illustrative.

20. A method of alleviating defects while forming an electrically conductive
plug, comprising:
providing an opening within electrically insulative material over a node
location on a substrate;
forming a single electrically conductive material to overfill the opening and
elevationally over the insulative material, the electrically conductive material
physically contacting the electrically insulative material within the opening;
removing some of the conductive material effective to recess an outermost
surface of the conductive material from an outermost surface of the insulative
material after said removing of some of the conductive material, the conductive
Appeal 2011-006220
Application 11/728,492

3

material having an outermost surface first roughness within the opening after said
removing of some of the conductive material;
after removing some of the conductive material, overfilling remaining
volume of the opening over the conductive material with a single electrically
conductive metal material different from that of the conductive material; and
polishing the metal material effective to form an electrically conductive plug
within the opening comprising the conductive material and the metal material, the
electrically conductive plug having an outermost surface second roughness after
said metal material-polishing which is less than that of the first roughness; the
method alleviating roughness defects in the electrically conductive plug.

THE REJECTIONS
Claim 20 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by US
7,008,871 (“Andricacos”).
Claims 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 45, 49 and 52 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Andricacos.
Claims 21 and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andricacos in view of US 6,242,324 (“Kub”).
Claim 38 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Andricacos.
Claim 39 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Andricacos as applied to claim 38 in view of US 5,780,358 (“Zhou”).
Claims 43, 49 and 52 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andricacos in view of US Patent Application Publication
Number 2006/0024950 (“Choi”).
Appeal 2011-006220
Application 11/728,492

4

Claims 46, 47, and 48 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andricacos in view of Choi as applied to claim 43 and further in
view of US 5641710 (“Wang”).

THE REJECTION OF CLAIM 20 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
ISSUE
The contentions of the Examiner and Appellants are detailed in the Appeal
Brief filed on September 15, 2010, the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December
22, 2010 and the Reply Brief filed on February 10, 2011. The primary issue in
dispute is the Examiner’s finding that Andricacos teaches a single electrically
conductive material to overfill the opening and elevationally over the insulative
material, the electrically conductive material physically contacting the electrically
insulative material within the opening. (Ans. 4, emphasis added). The Examiner
maps the claimed single electrically conductive material to the copper wiring 10
and a barrier layer 12, typically Ta, TaN, W, WN or multiple layers thereof,
disclosed in Andricacos. (Id.; Andricacos, col. 3, ll. 58-61). The Examiner maps
the claimed single electrically conductive metal, which is different from the
claimed single electrically conductive material (10, 12 in Andricacos), to capping
or barrier layer 18 in Andricacos. (Id.). The Examiner finds that the barrier layer
12 and the copper wiring 10 teach a single electrically conductive material because
they constitute a laminate and because a single material can contain
subcomponents. (Ans. 16).
Appellants contend that the materials 10 and 12 in Andricacos do not qualify
as a single material. (App. Br. 13). Appellants argue (i) that Andricacos
represents the materials 10 and 12 as distinct materials in each and every figure;
(ii) that the SEM shown in Figure 6 of Andricacos shows that liner 12 remains a
Appeal 2011-006220
Application 11/728,492

5

separate material after further processing; and, (iii) that neither of the conductive
materials 10 nor 12 qualifies as the claimed single conductive material because
material 10 is not in physical contact with the insulative material and material 12
never touches the opening. (Id.). Appellants further argue that none of the
independent claims recites a laminar material. (Reply Br. 2).

ANALYSIS
Although the claim language “single electrically conductive material” had
been the subject of rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 during the prosecution of the
subject application, no such rejections are now pending and there are no issues
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 before us.
Appellants cite paragraph [0036] of the specification as disclosing the
claimed single electrically conductive material. (App. Br. 4). The specification
does not use the word “single” to describe the electrically conductive material.
The specification states that “exemplary preferred materials include elemental-
form materials, conductive metal compounds, and conductively doped
semiconductive materials (i.e., polysilicon)… Elemental-form materials might
comprise an alloy of elemental metals. By way of example only, elemental metal
alloys might comprise any combination of two or more elemental metals.” (Spec.
¶[0036]).
Figures 1A – 4C of Andricacos all show materials 10 and 12 lined
differently, indicating that they are different materials. Andricacos teaches
selectively capping the copper 10 in the presence of a liner 12 and stopping the
planarization process prior to removal of the liner. Carrying out selective etching
in the presence of the liner eliminates bridging and shorts upon subsequent
removal of the liner. (Col. 3, ll. 46-61).
Appeal 2011-006220
Application 11/728,492

6

In Andricacos, the liner 12 is employed along the bottom and sidewalls of
the copper wiring 10 between the copper and the dielectic 16. The liner 12 is also
present along the horizontal of the dielectric 16 in the vicinity of the copper wiring
10. (Col. 4, ll. 8-12). Because the liner 12 is between the copper 10 and the
insulative material, we agree with Appellant that copper material 10 does not make
contact with the insulative material. (App, Br. 13).
In the embodiment of Figure 1of Andricacos, the capping or barrier layers
18, 20 are selectively electroplated only on the copper 10 and not on the liner 12.
(Col. 4, ll. 59-63). In this embodiment, Andricacos discloses that “[T]he barrier
layer 18 does not electroplate on the liner and on only on the copper.” (Id.). This is
a further indication that Andricacos treats the copper and the liner as separate
materials.
Andricacos shows different materials used for different purposes. One
material 12 forms a liner which is in contact with the insulative material and in at
least one embodiment is not electroplated with the capping material. The other
material 10 is primarily a wire, which is not in contact with the insulative material
and in the same embodiment is electroplated with the capping material.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that Andricacos does not anticipate claim
20, which recites a single electrically conductive material, some of which is
removed and later covered with a single electrically conductive metal. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants group the individual rejections of claims 21-22, 31- 35, 38- 40,
43, 45-49 and 52 together and argue that the claims are patentable because the
cited laminar material 10, 12 in Andircacos fails to teach the claimed single
Appeal 2011-006220
Application 11/728,492

7

electrically conductive material. Appellants advance substantially the same
arguments as those advanced in opposition to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e). (App. Br. 14-15). Since, as discussed above, we agree with Appellants that
Andircacos does not disclose the claimed single electrically conductive material,
we reverse each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by
Andricacos is reversed.
The rejection of claims 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 40, 45, 49 and 52 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Andricacos is reversed.
The rejection of claims 21 and 22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Andricacos in view of Kub is reversed.
The rejection of claim 38 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Andricacos is reversed.
The rejection of claim 39 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Andricacos as applied to claim 38 in view of Zhou is reversed.
The rejection of claims 43, 49 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andricacos in view Choi is reversed.
The rejection of claims 46, 47, and 48 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Andricacos in view of Choi as applied to claim
43 and further in view of Wang is reversed.

REVERSED
ack