Ex Parte Todd

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2014

11626730 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL A. TODD
____________

Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1–7, 9, 11–14, 16–18, 20–24, and 26–30. 1, 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 19, 2011, hereinafter “App.
Br.”), the Reply Brief (filed Feb. 24, 2012, hereinafter “Reply Br.”), and the
Answer (mailed Jan. 6, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.”) for the respective positions
of Appellant and the Examiner.
2 According to Appellant, ASM America Inc. is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 5.
Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730

2
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method for deposition of a silicon-
containing film over a mixed substrate for use in semiconductor
manufacturing. Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, the independent claim on appeal, is illustrative and reads as
follows:
1. A deposition method comprising:
depositing an amorphous Si-containing film onto an
exposed single crystal surface of a mixed substrate at a rate of
about 20 Å per minute or higher using a feed gas that comprises
trisilane, wherein the amorphous Si-containing film has a
thickness non-uniformity that is about 20% or less across its
surface over the mixed substrate; and
annealing the amorphous Si-containing film to form a
crystalline Si-containing film that comprises a single crystal
region.

App. Br. 24, Claims App’x.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Nishida US 4,927,786 May 22, 1990
Burghartz US 5,461,250 Oct. 24, 1995
Kanbayashi JP 09-082651 A Mar. 28, 1997
Thakur US 5,656,531 Aug. 12, 1997
Noguchi US 5,969,393 Oct. 19, 1999
Shiozawa US 6,091,117 July 18, 2000
Yamazaki US 6,147,375 Nov. 14, 2000
Yamazaki US 6,835,675 B2 Dec. 28, 2004

Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730

3
Rejections
I. Claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375,
Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675.
II. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375, Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675,
and Noguchi.
III. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375, Thakur, Yamazaki ’675,
Noguchi, and Burghartz.
IV. Claims 20–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375, Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675.
V. Claims 27–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375, Thakur, Yamazaki ’675, and
Nishida.
VI. Claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 26 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), as being unpatentable over Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375,
and Yamazaki ’675.
VII. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375, Yamazaki ’675, and
Noguchi.
VIII. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
being unpatentable over Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375, Yamazaki ’675,
Noguchi, and Burghartz.
IX. Claims 20–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375, and Yamazaki ’675.
Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730

4
X. Claims 27–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
unpatentable over Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375, Yamazaki ’675, and
Nishida.

ANALYSIS
Rejections I and IV
Appellant argues that a skilled artisan would not have had a
reasonable expectation of success in laying down an Si-containing film with
both the claimed deposition rate and the claimed film thickness non-
uniformity, particularly over a mixed substrate, as required by claim 1 (App.
Br. 13).
Appellant asserts that the evidence of record supports the idea that
high speed and high quality are generally difficult to achieve simultaneously
(App. Br. 10–12). Specifically, Appellant asserts that (1) Miyasaka (US
5,858,819, col. 14, ll. 9–20) teaches that a high deposition rate results in
deterioration in the film uniformity; (2) Ishiguro (US 6,150,283, col. 16, ll.
25–29) teaches that thickness uniformity leads to a sacrifice in the deposition
rate; and (3) Batey (US 5,068,124, col. 2, ll. 1–13, 15–30) (citing Engle (US
4,223,048)) describes a fast deposition rate that resulted in a poor quality
film and teaches that it is likely that the quality of films would be poor at a
high deposition rate (id.).
The Examiner responds that the evidence cited by Appellant does not
preclude high speed and high quality because (1) Miyasaka (col. 14, l. 28)
teaches that high quality can be maintained with a high gas transport rate; (2)
Ishiguro (col. 16, ll. 1–33) states that the uniformity of film thickness does
not change much; and Batey (col. 2, ll. 1–13) uses a deposition rate that is
Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730

5
higher than the claimed invention. (Ans. 18–20). Appellant argues (Reply
Br. 2) that “[t]he Examiner appears to have conflated ‘teaching away’ with
the absence of a reasonable expectation of success.” Although we agree
with the Examiner that the evidence does not preclude high speed and high
quality, we agree with the Appellant (Reply Br. 2–3) that there is a trade-off
between deposition rate and uniformity and that the evidence demonstrates
that there is greater variation in the uniformity of thickness as the rate of
deposition increases.
Although Yamazaki ’375 (col. 11, ll. 48–67; col. 12, ll. 1–67)
achieves a deposition rate of 50–250 Å per minute and Yamazaki ’675 (col.
7, l. 50 – col. 8, l. 20) achieves a thickness non-uniformity of within ± 2.5%
(see Ans. 18), there is no evidence that the claimed deposition rate and the
claimed thickness non-uniformity can be achieved at the same time.3
Moreover, as Appellant states (App. Br. 13), the Yamazaki references
deposited the Si-containing layer on a silicon oxide substrate, whereas claim
1 recites deposition on a mixed substrate. The Examiner concludes that the
Yamazaki references would act with no change in their respective functions
(Ans. 24). Nevertheless, given the evidence of a trade-off between high
speed of deposition and high quality, there is no evidence of a reasonable
likelihood of success of achieving both the claimed deposition speed and
claimed thickness non-uniformity at the same time, particularly on a
different substrate than that used by the Yamazaki references.

3 Yamazaki ’375 does not report a thickness non-uniformity measurement
corresponding to the stated deposition rate although it notes that the silicon
film was formed to a thickness of 500–5000 Å (col. 12, ll. 16–17).
Yamazaki ’675 does not report a deposition rate corresponding to the stated
thickness non-uniformity data (col. 7, l. 50 – col. 8, l. 20).
Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730

6
Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375, Thakur, and Yamazaki
’675 is not sustained.
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2–7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17,
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki
’375, Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675 relies on the same reasoning as for claim
1. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 2–7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17,
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki
’375, Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675.
Further, we cannot sustain the rejection of dependent claims 20–24 as
unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375, Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675,
for similar reasons.

Rejections II, III, and V
The Examiner has also rejected claims 11, 12, 18, and 27–30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375,
Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675 and further in view of one or more of Noguchi,
Burghartz, and Nishida. The Examiner relies on Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375,
Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675 as discussed above, and the Examiner relies on
Noguchi, Burghartz, and Nishida only to supply evidence for dependent
claim limitations. The evidence supplied by the Examiner does not remedy
the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shiozawa, Yamazaki ’375, Thakur, and Yamazaki ’675.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 11, 12, 18, and
27–30 for the reasons discussed above.

Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730

7
Rejections VI–X
The Examiner has additionally rejected claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17,
20–24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Kanbayashi,
Yamazaki ’375, and Yamazaki ’675. This group of rejections is similar to
the rejections discussed above, although this group of rejections relies on
Kanbayashi rather than Shiozawa and Thakur. As the Examiner finds,
Kanbayashi (Fig. 1(b), ¶¶ 4–112) describes deposition of a Si-containing
film on a mixed substrate followed by annealing but does not address
deposition speed or thickness non-uniformity (Ans. 11–12). As such, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1–7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20–24, and 26
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as unpatentable over Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375,
and Yamazaki ’675 for similar reasons, as above.
The Examiner has rejected claims 11, 12, 18, and 27–30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable in view of Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375, and
Yamazaki ’675 and further in view of one or more of Noguchi, Burghartz,
and Nishida. The Examiner relies on Noguchi, Burghartz, and Nishida only
to supply evidence for dependent claim limitations. The evidence supplied
by the Examiner does not remedy the deficiency of the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kanbayashi, Yamazaki ’375,
and Yamazaki ’675. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 11, 12, 18, and 27–30.
Appeal 2012-005888
Application 11/626,730

8
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–7, 9, 11–14, 16–18,
20–24, and 26–30 is reversed.

REVERSED

Klh