Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12577922 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/577,922 10/13/2009 Shulin Wang
44257 7590 08/24/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP- - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
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.
007785/USCl/FEP/LPCVD/PJT 5288
EXAMINER
MILLER, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHULIN WANG, ERROL ANTONIO SANCHEZ,
and AIHUA CHEN 1
Appeal2015-001263
Application 12/577 ,922
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-10, 14, 15, 17, and 21-30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Applied Materials, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-001263
Application 12/577,922
Appellants claim a method of processing a substrate comprising
forming at least two treated silicon nitride layers on the substrate by
depositing a silicon nitride layer and exposing the layer to hydrogen radicals
thereby forming a treated silicon nitride layer, wherein successively formed
treated silicon nitride layers are formed onto a surface of previously formed
treated silicon nitride layers such that each successively formed treated
silicon nitride layer is adjacent to each previously formed treated silicon
nitride layer (independent claim 1; see also remaining independent claims 23
and 30).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method of processing a substrate, comprising:
heating a substrate to a temperature of 550° Corless;
forming at least two treated silicon nitride layers on the
substrate, wherein forming each treated silicon nitride layer
compnses:
thermally decomposing a gas mixture comprising a silicon
and nitrogen containing source gas and ammonia to deposit a
silicon nitride layer to a thickness of 1 ooA or less; and
exposing the silicon nitride layer to hydrogen radicals
formed by plasma decomposition of a hydrogen containing
source gas to treat the silicon nitride layer, wherein successively
formed treated silicon nitride layers are formed onto a surface of
previously formed treated silicon nitride layers such that each
successively formed treated silicon nitride layer is adjacent to
each previously formed treated silicon nitride layer.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects as unpatentable:
Claims 1-7, 14, 17, 21-25, 29, and 30 over Graff (US 2003/0104753
Al; June 5, 2003), Brown (US 5,264,724; Nov. 23, 1993), Fujimura (US
2
Appeal2015-001263
Application 12/577,922
6,255,197 Bl; July 3, 2001), and Wang (US 2004/0096582 Al; May 20,
2004);
Claims 8-10 and 26-28 over Graff, Brown, Fujimura, Wang, and
Hochberg (US 4,992,306; Feb. 12, 1991); and
Claim 15 over Graff, Brown, Fujimura, Wang, and Dory (US
4,877 ,651; Oct. 31, 1989).
Appellants do not present separate arguments specifically directed to
the dependent claims under rejection (App. Br. 7-11). Therefore, the
dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims of
which claim 1 is representative.
We sustain the above rejections for the reasons given in the Final
Action, the Answer, and below.
The Examiner finds that Graff teaches a method of processing a
substrate comprising forming at least two silicon nitride layers on the
substrate but that Graff is silent as to specific processing details such as
exposing a deposited silicon nitride layer to hydrogen radicals thereby
obtaining a treated silicon nitride layer as required by claim 1 (Final Action
3--4). In this latter regard, the Examiner finds that Brown teaches specific
processing details for depositing a silicon nitride layer on a substrate and
exposing the silicon nitride layer to hydrogen radicals to treat the silicon
layer as claimed (id. at 4).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have
been obvious to provide the method of Graff with the specific processing
3
Appeal2015-001263
Application 12/577,922
details taught by Brown (Final Action at 4--5). Concerning the claim 1
requirement that each successively formed treated silicon nitride layer is
formed adjacent (i.e. onto) a previously formed treated silicon nitride layer,
the Examiner further concludes that "it would have been an obvious matter
of design choice to place multiple barrier layer films [i.e., silicon nitride
layers] adjacent to one another" (id. at 5). Finally, the Examiner concludes
that it would been obvious to provide the modified method of Graff with the
hydrogen radical generation system of Fujimura (id.) and with the silicon
nitride precursor taught by Wang (id. at 6) thereby resulting in a method
having the corresponding features recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue:
[N]o reference or combination of references cited by the
Examiner teaches or suggests the recitation of claim 1 of
"forming at least two treated silicon nitride layers on the
substrate, wherein forming each treated silicon nitride layer
comprises deposit[inzl a silicon nitride layer" and "exposing the
silicon nitride layer to hydrogen radicals ... to treat the silicon
nitride layer, wherein successively formed treated silicon nitride
layers are formed onto a swface of previously formed treated
silicon nitride layers such that each successively formed treated
silicon nitride layer is adjacent to each previously formed treated
silicon nitride layer."
(App. Br. 7; see also id. at 8-10.)
Appellants' argument is not persuasive for the reasons detailed by the
Examiner (Ans. 2--4). As correctly explained by the Examiner, when Graff
and Brown are combined in the manner proposed in the rejection, "a
4
Appeal2015-001263
Application 12/577,922
plurality of treated layers [as well as other argued features of claim 1] would
have been achieved" (id. at 3).
In their Reply Brief, Appellants additionally argue that there is no
motivation to combine Graff and Brown because Brown teaches away from
applying hydrogen implantations to silicon nitride layers that are 100
Angstroms or less (Reply Br. 5-7) and that "the burden of showing forming
treated silicon nitride layers successively is merely an obvious matter of
design choice is not satisfied" (id. at 7 (bolding and capitalization removed);
see also id. at 8-9). These additional arguments could have been but were
not presented in the Appeal Brief. For this reason and because good cause
has not been shown by Appellants, we will not consider these new
arguments for purposes of the present appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b )(2)
(2013).
For the reasons stated above and given by the Examiner, Appellants
fail to show error in the § 103 rejections before us.
The decision of the Examiner 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5