Ex Parte Tiwari

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 7, 2010

10916825 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 7, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHANDRA TIWARI
____________

Appeal 2009-007267
Application 10/916,825
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 07, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-18,
21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30-33, and 36-58. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative:

Appeal 2009-007267
Application 10/916,825

1. An electroless metal deposition method comprising:

providing a substrate including an integrated circuit contact with a
first surface consisting of copper and/or tungsten, the substrate further
including an insulative second surface;

providing a self-initiating, electroless deposition bath containing
metal;

pretreating the substrate with a solution consisting of an admixture of
an ammonium-based hydroxide and water, even though without the
pretreatment the bath exhibits a property at a self-initiation temperature of
electrolessly depositing on the substrate a self-initiated layer containing
metal from the bath, and removing the solution from at least a portion of the
substrate;

without any subsequent additional pretreatment, contacting the
substrate with the bath and electrolessly depositing on the contact selective
to the first surface a self initiated layer containing metal from the bath, the
pretreating reducing the self-initiation temperature in comparison to an
otherwise identical method lacking the pretreating; and

forming a metal interconnect using the layer.

18. An electroless nickel deposition method comprising:

providing a substrate including a conductive surface and an insulative
surface, the conductive surface consisting of copper and/or tungsten;

providing a self-initiating, electroless deposition bath containing
nickel and exhibiting a first pH and a self-initiation temperature;

pretreating at least the conductive surface with a solution consisting of
an admixture of an ammonium-based hydroxide and water and exhibiting a
second pH greater than the first pH but no less than 9, even though without
the pretreatment the bath exhibits a property at a self-initiation temperature
of electrolessly depositing on the conductive surface a self-initiated layer
containing nickel from the bath; and

2
Appeal 2009-007267
Application 10/916,825

contacting the substrate with the bath and electrolessly depositing
selective to the conductive surface a self initiated layer containing nickel
from the bath, the pretreating reducing the self-initiation temperature in
comparison to an otherwise identical method lacking the pretreating.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 3):
Berzins 3,338,726 Aug. 29, 1967
Bengston 5,147,692 Sep. 15, 1992
Magnuson 5,427,895 Jun. 27, 1995
McConnell 6,165,912 Dec. 26, 2000

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to an electroless metal
deposition method using a self-initiating, electroless deposition bath. The
method entails pretreating a substrate comprising an integrated circuit
having a surface of copper and/or tungsten with an admixture of an
ammonium-based hydroxide and water. The pretreatment step reduces the
self-initiation temperature for the electroless metal deposition.
Appealed claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10-18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30-33, and 36-58
stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type
double patenting over claims 58-70 and 73-84 of co-pending application
U.S. Serial No. 11/494,400. The appealed claims also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Berzins in view of Bengston,
Magnuson, and McConnell.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
3
Appeal 2009-007267
Application 10/916,825

reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We consider first the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of the appealed
claims. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination
that Berzins, like Appellant, discloses a method of electroless metal
deposition on a substrate comprising copper and/or tungsten wherein the
electroless plating bath is a self-initiating one. Berzins teaches that the
metallic surface to be plated may be prepared by a cleaning step that is
standard practice in electroplating processes (col. 3, ll. 61-65). As
recognized by the Examiner, Berzins does not expressly disclose any
particular cleaning method. However, as pointed out by the Examiner,
McConnell evidences that it was known in the art to pretreat a metallic
substrate for electroless deposition by using a cleaning composition
comprising the presently claimed ammonium-based hydroxide and water
(col. 13, ll. 11-16). Magnuson also evidences that it was known in the art to
pretreat a metallic substrate for electroless deposition with an alkaline
cleaning solution (col. 3, ll. 20-25 and 45-55). Accordingly, we find no
error in the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to select Appellant’s aqueous solution of
ammonium hydroxide for Berzins’s pretreating cleaning composition.
We agree with the Examiner that it is of no moment that the references
may not appreciate that such a selection of a known cleaning composition
for electroless deposition may lower the self-initiation temperature. As
noted by the Examiner, a known or obvious method is not rendered
nonobvious by discovering an additional advantage associated with the
method. Stated otherwise, the prior art need not disclose the same purpose
4
Appeal 2009-007267
Application 10/916,825

for a claimed method in order to establish its obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §
103. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Appellant points to McConnell’s disclosure of metal substrates that do
not require surface activation, and the claimed copper and tungsten
substrates are not included in the list. Therefore, Appellant maintains that
“McConnell fails to disclose pretreating the claimed conductive surface
consisting of copper and/or tungsten with a solution consisting of an
admixture of ammonium-based hydroxide and water” (App. Br. 11, first full
para.). However, McConnell’s precleaning step with an aqueous solution of
ammonium hydroxide is not limited to metal substrates that require
activation but, rather, the cleaning step is for all metallic substrates that
receive electroless deposition whether an activation step is employed or not.
McConnell teaches that the cleaning “treatment may be necessary to remove
contaminants or other materials that may interfere with the electroless metal
deposition” (col. 14, ll. 46-48). As noted above, Berzins teaches a cleaning
treatment for copper and tungsten substrates before electroless deposition.
As for the claim 18 recitation of a pH no less than 9 for the pretreating
composition, we fully concur with the Examiner that it would have been a
matter of obvious, routine experimentation to determine the optimum pH for
the cleaning solution of Berzins’s method, particularly since Magnuson
teaches a conventional alkaline cleaning composition for a copper substrate
which receives electroless deposition having a pH of about 13.
Appellant refers to paragraphs 24 and 35-39 of the present
Specification for a description of unique considerations and surprising
results stemming from the claimed method. However, Appellant has not set
forth the requisite analysis of the Specification data for satisfying the burden
5
Appeal 2009-007267
Application 10/916,825

of demonstrating unexpected results. It is not within the province of this
Board to independently assess the probative value of Specification data and
interpret it in a light most favorable to the Applicant. It is well settled that
the burden of demonstrating unexpected results is on the party asserting
them. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972).
Appellant does not present a substantive argument against the double
patenting rejection but simply requests the withdrawal of the rejection
because all of the appealed claims are asserted as being patentable.
Consequently, we will summarily affirm the Examiner’s obviousness-type
double patenting rejection.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
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) (2008).

AFFIRMED

ssl

WELLS ST. JOHN P.S.
601 W. FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 1300
SPOKANE, WA 99201
6