Ex Parte Varadarajan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13494836 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/494,836 06/12/2012 Bhadri V aradarajan
83422 7590 09/04/2018
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson - LAMR/NOVL
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
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.
NOVLP466/NVLS003722 7411
EXAMINER
PATERSON, BRIGITTE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2812
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BHADRI V ARADARAJAN
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
Technology Center 2800
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
January 9, 2017 decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9, and 12-17 ("Non-Final Act.").
We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as Novellus Systems, Inc.
and Lam Research Corporation (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant's disclosure is directed to a method for providing oxygen
doped silicon carbide (Abstract). Details of the claimed method are set forth
in claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix ( emphasis
added):
1. A method of depositing oxygen doped silicon
carbide, 2 the method comprising:
providing a substrate;
flowing one or more silicon-containing precursors onto
the substrate, wherein each of the one or more silicon-
containing precursors have (i) one or more silicon-hydrogen
bonds and/or silicon-silicon bonds and (ii) one or more silicon-
oxygen bonds and one or more silicon-carbon bonds;
flowing a source gas into a plasma source;
generating, from the source gas, radicals of hydrogen in
the plasma source; and
introducing the radicals of hydrogen onto the substrate,
wherein at least 90% of the radicals are radicals of hydrogen in
the ground state that react with the one or more silicon-
containing precursors to form oxygen doped silicon carbide on
the substrate under conditions that selectively break one or both
of silicon-hydrogen bonds and silicon-silicon bonds but
preserve the silicon-oxygen bonds and the silicon-carbon
bonds, wherein a ratio of oxygen to carbon concentration in the
oxygen doped silicon carbide is between 0.5:1 and 3:1.
2 The Specification states that oxygen doped silicon carbide is also known as
silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) (Spec. i-fi12-3).
2
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mallick3 in view ofWrobel4 as evidenced by Xiao. 5
II. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of
Laxman. 6
III. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Mallick in view of Wrobel and Laxman, and further in view of Jones. 7
IV. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view ofNukui. 8
V. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of Hung. 9
VI. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of Hayashi. 10
VII. Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of
Torres. 11
3 Mallick et al., US 2010/0081293 Al, published April 1, 2010.
4 Wrobel et al, Oligomerization and Polymerization Steps in Remote
Plasma Chemical Vapor Deposition of Silicon-Carbon and Silica Films from
Organosilicon Sources, 13 Chem. Mater. 1884--1895 (2001).
5 Xiao et al., US 2013/0129940 Al, published May 23, 2013.
6 Laxman et al., US 2003/0064154 Al, published April 3, 2003.
7 Jones et al., Silicon-containing polymers: The Science and Technology of
their Synthesis and Applications (2001 ).
8 Nukui et al., US 2009/0082240 Al, published March 26, 2009.
9 Hung, US 2008/0064173 Al, published March 13, 2008.
10 Hayashi et al., US 2010/0207274 Al, published August 19, 2010.
11 Torres et al., US 2009/0218699 Al, published September 3, 2009.
3
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that Mallick teaches a method of depositing
oxygen doped silicon carbide comprising each of the claimed steps, except
that it does not explicitly teach that at least 90% of the radicals are radicals
of hydrogen in the ground state, nor wherein the radicals selectively preserve
the Si-0 bonds as well as the Si-C bonds (Non Final-Act. 4--5, citing
Mallick, ,r,r 15-28). The Examiner further finds that Mallick teaches that
radical species break Si-Si and Si-H bonds in silicon precursor layers (Non-
Final Act. 5, citing Mallick ,r,r 27-28).
The Examiner finds that while under similar conditions Wrobel does
not explicitly teach that the Si-0 and Si-C bonds are preserved, "Wrobel has
taught the same radicals of hydrogen in the same energy state as the claimed
radicals, therefore the ordinary skilled artisan would expect radicals of the
same atom, in the same energy state to behave in the same manner i.e.
preserving both Si-0 and Si-C bonds" (Non-Final Act. 5). The Examiner
determines that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art ... to add the invention of Wrobel, including using hydrogen radicals in
the ground state in order to break the Si-Si and Si-H bonds of the silicon
precursor layer of the invention of Mallick" because "hydrogen radicals in
the ground state provide the predictable result of breaking silicon-silicon
bonds and Si-H bonds in silicon precursor layers which is required of the
invention of Mallick" (Non-Final Act. 5---6). The Examiner also finds that
while Mallick does not explicitly teach the oxygen:carbon ratio in the
resulting film, Mallick does teach using organaminosilanes, silanes, and
silicon-containing precursors to form SiOC, and Xiao teaches that when
4
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
these precursors are used for form silicon containing films, the resulting
oxygen:carbon ratio is 1: 1 (Non-Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the cited references do not disclose
silicon-containing precursors for preparing oxygen doped silicon carbide
that each has one or more Si-0 and Si-C bonds in making SiOC films to a
person of ordinary skill in the art (Appeal Br. 15-17). After careful review
of the evidence of record, Appellant's position, as well as the Examiner's
findings, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner reversibly erred in
finding this limitation was taught or suggested by the cited prior art.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prim a f acie case of
unpatentability."). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 83 7 F .2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner cites to Mallick' s Paragraph 23 as teaching the
limitation that "each of the one or more silicon-containing precursors have
(i) one or more silicon-hydrogen bonds and/or silicon-silicon bonds and
(ii) one or more silicon-oxygen bonds and one or more silicon-carbon
bonds" (Ans. 6). In particular, the Examiner finds that the first sentence in
Mallick's Paragraph 23 supports his finding: "The organosilicon precursor
has a bond selected from a group consisting of C-Si-H, C-Si-Si" (id. at 7).
5
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
However, further disclosure in Mallick's Paragraph 23 outlines the specific
precursors need to form silicon carbide (Si-C) films, silicon oxycarbide
(SiOC) films, 12 and silicon carbide nitride (SiCN) films (Mallick, ,r 23).
In particular, as explained by Appellant (Appeal Br. 15-16), Mallick
states that in order to form a silicon oxycarbide (included in the product
made by the method of appealed claim 1 ), the organosilicon precursor may
be selected from linear polyalkoxysilanes, cyclic alkoxyoxysilanes,
alkoxysilanes, alkoxydisilanes, and polyaminosilanes, which have the
following structural formulae:
Cy·:;.JJt. Alk-,,x,-di$:sh:.:,·~
R...,,__ .,....,H
/;,;J~
R 'R R' 5S;-$,R\
where the various R groups are methoxy, ethoxy and higher homologs.
Mallick, i-fi-f23, 25. None of these compounds contain an Si-C bond, as
required by claim 1.
Mallick specifically states that "[fJor embodiments forming a silicon
12 Silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) films are the films made by process of claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
oxycarbide (SiOC), the organo-silicon precursor can be, for example, linear
polyalkoxysilanes ... cyclic alkoxyoxysilanes ... alkoxysilanes ...
alkoxydisilanes ... and/or polyaminosilanes" (Mallick, ,r 23, emphasis
added). The use of the wording "can be, for example," might arguably
suggest the more generic statement at the beginning of the Paragraph 23 that
"[t]he organo-silicon precursor has a bond selected from a group consisting
of C-Si-H, C-Si-Si," would apply to precursors for making SiOC films
( which would mean that Mallick would teach the use of the claimed
precursors). However, as noted by Appellant (Appeal Br. 16 and Reply Br.
5), citing December 8, 2016 Rule 132 Declaration of Bhadri Varadarajan
("Varadarajan Dec.")), Mallick describes a process which takes place in an
inert atmosphere, free from oxygen (Mallick, ,r,r 20, 21, and 27). Thus, in
order to create an oxygen doped silicon carbide (SiOC), the oxygen must be
present in the precursor material. The only precursors disclosed by Mallick
which include oxygen are those which are described in Paragraph 23 as
linear polyalkoxysilanes, cyclic alkoxyoxysilanes, alkoxysilanes,
alkoxydisilanes, and/or polyaminosilanes, whose structural formulae are set
forth in Paragraph 25. These precursors reasonably do not contain Si-C
bonds, as required by the claims, and as maintained by Appellant. Appeal
Br. 15-16; see also Varadarajan Dec. ,r 9. The Examiner presents neither
contrary evidence nor persuasive reasoning to rebut Appellant's position, but
instead, addressing the declaration evidence, merely contends that
"[a]pplicant has not provided any evidence that no linear polyalkoxysilanes
contain SiC bonds." Non-Final Act. 15. This, however, fails to establish
that Mallick describes, or would suggest, that its polyalkoxysilanes contain
SiC bonds to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention.
7
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has demonstrated reversible
error in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we reverse this rejection.
Because the limitation that the precursor include one or more silicon-carbon
bonds is also present in each of the dependent claims and none of the
additionally cited references in Rejections II-VII address this limitation, we
also reverse those rejections.
CONCLUSION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel as
evidenced by Xiao.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of
Laxman.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel and Laxman, and further in
view of Jones.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view ofNukui.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of Hung.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of
Hayashi.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Mallick in view of Wrobel, and further in view of Torres.
8
Appeal2018-001390
Application 13/494,836
REVERSED
9