Ex parte TENG

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2001

08879477 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2001)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MING-CHANG TENG
____________
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, FLEMING and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 13, 14-21, 24, and 27-
29, which constitutes all the pending claims in the
application.
The invention relates to a method of depositing a metal
layer, aluminum-copper alloy, at two different temperature
ranges and at specified thicknesses which yield unexpectantly
improved via resistance.
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
2
The invention is further illustrated by the following
claim.
1. A method of depositing a metal layer on a semiconductor
substrate comprising the steps of:
providing a silicon substrate having a first metal layer;
depositing an insulating layer over said metal layer;

forming via holes therein said insulating layer;
performing a sputter etch cleaning of said via holes;
depositing a barrier layer in said via holes;
depositing a film of second metal over said barrier layer,
wherein said second metal is aluminum copper alloy, wherein
second metal is deposited at a temperature between about 40°C
to 80°C, and wherein the thickness of said second metal is
between about 6,000 to 6,600 Å; and
depositing an anti-reflective coating onto said film of metal.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Lee et al. (Lee) 5,266,521
Nov. 30, 1993
MacNaughton et al. (MacNaughton) 5,374,592
Dec. 20, 1994
Mueller et al. (Mueller) 5,427,666
June 27, 1995
Admitted Prior Art (APA)
Claims 1-8, 12 and 13 stand rejected over APA in view of
Mueller and MacNaughton, while claims 1-8, 12, 13, 14-21, 24,
and 27-29 stand rejected over Lee in view of APA and
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
3
MacNaughton.
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
A reply brief was filed as Paper No. 19 and was1
considered by the Examiner without any further response, see
Paper No. 21.
4
Rather than repeat the positions and the arguments of
Appellant and the Examiner, we make reference to the briefs1
and the answer for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner.
We have, likewise reviewed Appellant's arguments against the
rejections as set forth in the briefs.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not proper.
Accordingly, we reverse.
At the outset, we note that Appellant has elected all
the claims to stand or fall together, see brief at page 7.
ANALYSIS
In our analysis, we are guided by the general proposition
that in an appeal involving a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
5
an Examiner is under a burden to make out a prima facie case
of obviousness. If that burden is met, the burden of going
forward then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness, is then
determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed.
Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). We are further guided by
the precedent of our reviewing court that the limitations from
the disclosure are not to be imported into the claims. In re
Lundberg, 244 F.2d 543, 113 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1957); In re
Queener, 796 F.2d 461, 230 USPQ 438 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We
also note that the arguments not made separately for any
individual claim or claims are considered waived. See 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a) and (c). In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not
the function of this court to examine the claims in
greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
6
nonobviousness distinctions over the prior art.”); In re
Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA
1967)(“This court has uniformly followed the sound rule that
an issue raised below which is not argued in this court, even of
it has been properly brought here by reason of appeal is
regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. It is our
function as a court to decide disputed issues, not to create
them.”).
The Examiner has given two separate rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over two combinations of references.
We consider the two rejections of in seriatim.
Rejection of claims 1-8, 12 and 13.
The Examiner explains the rejection of these claims
over APA, Mueller and MacNaughton in detail on pages 4
to 6 of the Examiner's answer. We agree with the Examiner
that Mueller shows a barrier layer (TiN) at 58, and
MacNaughton shows a metal deposition process at the
temperature range of 40° to 80°C, approximately, in Figure 4
and column 3, lines 28-33. MacNaughton, like Appellant, also
is concerned with the problems of having "voids" and larger
grain size particles in the making of the semiconductor
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
7
devices. However, we do not agree with the Examiner's
assertion that MacNaughton's teachings of aluminum can be
directly transferred to the manufacture of aluminum copper
alloy. Instead, we agree with Appellant's argument, brief at
page 8, "that MacNaughton teaches the use
of a deposition temperature at low temperature below 100°C to
obtain small grain size is again only in relation to the
deposition of aluminum and aluminum only. . . . [and]
it would be erroneous to assume that everything that is taught
about aluminum will also apply exactly the same way to its
alloy, AlCu." The Examiner needs a bridging reference
or a line of reasoning before the teachings of MacNaughton,
which are solely disclosed to relate to the deposition of
aluminum only, can be transferred to the manufacture involving
aluminum copper alloy. This the Examiner has not done.
Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-8, 12
and 13 over APA in view of Mueller and MacNaughton.
Rejection of claims 1-8, 12, 13, 14-21, 24, and 27-29.
The Examiner has given a lucid explanation of the
rejection of these claims over Lee in view of APA and
MacNaughton on pages 6-8 of the Examiner's answer. We agree
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
8
with the Examiner that Lee discloses the temperature range as
"below 150°C for the first layer to obtain small grain [size]
and high surface energy, . . . and higher . . . temperature but
lower than below 350°C [for the second layer]", see Examiner's
answer at page 6. However, we again disagree with the Examiner
when Examiner uses the teachings of MacNaughton to modify the
temperature range disclosed by Lee. Therefore, for the same
rationale as above, we are of the view that the combination of
Lee and MacNaughton is not justified. APA does not add any
rationale to further justify the combination of MacNaughton and
Lee. Therefore, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-8, 12, 13, 14-21, 24, and 27-29 over Lee, APA and
MacNaughton.
Finally, we note parenthetically that the Examiner has
made certain other allegations. For example, answer at page 11
alleges that the original disclosed temperature range for the
disclosed process was between 30° and 80°C, and was later
changed to between 40°C and 80°; and answer at pages 11 and 12
alleges that the results in Figure 2C of the disclosure are not
commensurate with the scope of the claims. However, according
to the guidelines above, in making our decision, we have only
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
9
dealt with the issues which were actually raised before us on
appeal, and we do not wish to create new issues which are not
properly before us.
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
10
In conclusion, we have not sustained the rejection of
claims 1-8, 12 and 13, over APA, Mueller and MacNaughton and
the rejection of 1-8, 12, 13, 14-21, 24, and 27-29 over Lee,
APA and MacNaughton. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jg
Appeal No. 1999-1792
Application No. 08/879,477
11
GEORGE O. SAILE
20 MCINTOSH DR.
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12603