Ex Parte Tapily et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2019

14712681 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/712,681 05/14/2015 Kandabara N. Tapily
37694 7590 06/27/2019
WOOD, HERRON & EV ANS, LLP (TOKYO ELECTRON)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
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.
TTCA-475US2-0RD 6976
EXAMINER
HUBER, ROBERT T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2019 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
abilton@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KANDABARA N. TAPIL Y, DAVID L. O'MEARA, and
TATNGAI 1
Appeal2018-007520
Application 14/712,681
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BRIAND. RANGE, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 25-32 as unpatentable over
Inumiya (US 2009/0114996 Al, published May 7, 2009) in view of Greer
(US 2014/0252565 Al, published Sept. 11, 2014). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Appellants are the Applicants, Tokyo Electron Limited and SEMATECH.
Tokyo Electron Limited is identified as the real party in interest (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal2018-007520
Application 14/712,681
We AFFIRM.
Appellants claim a method for forming a germanium-containing
semiconductor device comprising the steps of providing a germanium-
containing substrate having a layer consisting of Ge02 thereon and
depositing a silicon-containing interface layer on the layer consisting of
Ge02 (sole independent claim 25).
Other details of the claimed method are set forth in representative
claim 25, a copy of which taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief appears below.
25. A method for forming a germanium-containing
semiconductor device, the method comprising:
providing a germanium-containing substrate having a
layer consisting of Ge02 thereon;
depositing a silicon-containing interface layer on the
layer consisting of Ge02;
depositing an aluminum-containing diffusion barrier
layer on the silicon-containing interface layer; and
depositing a high-k layer on the aluminum-containing
diffusion barrier layer.
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
dependent claims 26-32 (see App. Br. 4--12). Therefore, these dependent
claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claim 25.
We sustain the above rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final
Office Action, the Examiner's Answer, and below.
In rejecting claim 25, the Examiner finds that Inumiya discloses a
method corresponding to the claimed method except for the claim
requirements involving a Ge02 layer (i.e., Inumiya's germanium-containing
substrate does not have a Ge02 layer thereon and concomitantly Inumiya's
2
Appeal2018-007520
Application 14/712,681
silicon-containing layer of Si02 is not deposited on the Ge02 layer) (Final
Action 3). The Examiner finds that Greer discloses providing a germanium-
containing substrate with a Ge02 layer thereon and depositing a dielectric
layer on the Ge02 layer (id. at 3--4). The Examiner concludes that, in view
of Greer, it would have been obvious to modify Inumiya's method whereby
the germanium-containing substrate has a Ge02 layer thereon with the
silicon-containing interface layer of Si02 deposited on the Ge02 layer in
order to achieve the benefits taught by Greer including passivation of the
germanium-containing substrate (id. at 4).
Appellants argue that Greer's addition of a Ge02 layer is specific to
solving a problem with depositing a high-k metal oxide gate dielectric
directly on a Si-Ge or Ge substrate and that "[t]he problem Greer solves
would not exist if a Si02 layer were present on the Si-Ge substrate, as in
Inumiya" (App. Br. 8). According to Appellants, "thus one skilled in the art
would lack the motivation to use Greer's solution in the device of Inumiya"
(id.).
In response, the Examiner finds:
Greer explicitly teaches in ,r [0056] "an overlying dielectric
layer (e.g. a gate dielectric) is deposited over the monolayer of
Ge02. For example, the dielectric layer may be a high-k
dielectric, such as stoichiometric or non-stoichiometric hafnium
oxide, aluminum oxide, or zirconium oxide. Alternatively, some
other dielectric may be used". It was well-known in the art that
Si02 is a dielectric that was commonly used as a gate dielectric
as disclosed by the primary reference of Inumiya. Hence, Greer
does NOT require that only a high-k metal oxide must be
formed on the Ge02 layer, and explicitly teaches that other
dielectric layers may be formed on the Ge02 layer.
(Ans. 4).
3
Appeal2018-007520
Application 14/712,681
Appellants reply "[a] more plausible interpretation [ of Greer's
paragraph 56 disclosure], when considering the reference as a whole, is that
'some other dielectric' refers to high-k dielectrics other than the specific
recited examples" (Reply Br. 3).
Appellants' argument and reply are not compatible with Greer's
express disclosure that "[f]or example, the dielectric layer may be a high-k
dielectric" and that "[a]ltematively, some other dielectric may be used"
(Greer ,r 56; emphasis added). This incompatibility is reinforced by Greer's
teaching that "[t]he overlayer may be a high-k dielectric ... or may be
another type of oxide layer or some other material" (Greer ,r 16).
For these reasons, we fully agree with the Examiner's determination
that the benefits of Greer's Ge02 layer are not limited to high-k metal oxide
dielectrics as argued by Appellants. Rather, these benefits are applicable to
other dielectrics as expressly taught by Greer including Inumiya's Si02
layer. Because this Si02 layer is disposed on a germanium-containing
substrate, an artisan would have recognized that such a disposition would be
subject to the native germanium oxide and uneven nucleation problems
disclosed by Greer (Greer ,r,r 36-39). Correspondingly, the artisan would
have recognized the desirability of providing a Ge02 layer between the Si02
layer and germanium-containing substrate of Inumiya in order to avoid such
problems as taught by Greer (Greer ,r,r 11, 41).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants present a new argument not raised in
the Appeal Brief. Specifically, Appellants newly argue that "[i]f Inumiya is
modified to form Ge02 over the silicon-germanium epitaxial layer, then the
thermal oxidation treatment or the ozone water oxidation treatment would
not form Si02[, and] [t]hus, the proposed modification changes the
principles of operation of Inumiya" (Reply Br. 3). Appellants do not show
4
Appeal2018-007520
Application 14/712,681
good cause for belatedly raising this argument in their Reply Brief (see
generally Reply Br.). Accordingly, we will not consider this new argument
for purposes of the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 25-32 over
Inumiya and Greer.
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).
AFFIRMED
5