Ex Parte YAN et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 8, 2003

09300563 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Jan. 8, 2003)

1 Claim 12, which depends from claim 11, should stand
objected to as depending from a rejected base claim.
1
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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the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. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte CHUN YAN, YAN YE
and DIANA XIAOBING MA
__________
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before FRANKFORT, MCQUADE, and BAHR, Administrative Patent
Judges.
MCQUADE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Chun Yan et al. appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 6, 10 and 11. Claims 7 through 9, 12 and 14, the only
other claims pending in the application, stand allowed.1
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
2
THE INVENTION
The invention relates to a method and apparatus for
processing semiconductor wafers. Representative claims 1 and 10
read as follows:
1. A method for processing a workpiece in a chamber having a
plurality of gas nozzles, comprising the steps of:
selectively opening a first number of the plurality of gas
nozzles while selectively blocking a second number of the
plurality of gas nozzles;
introducing an asymmetric flow of process gas to the chamber
through said selectively opened first number of gas nozzles; and
processing the workpiece with said process gas.
10. Apparatus for processing a workpiece, comprising:
a processing chamber having a wall;
a pump port, communicating through said wall;
one or more gas nozzles selectively opened and one or more
gas nozzles selectively blocked, said gas nozzles communicating
through said wall, and said gas nozzles being located mostly
proximate said pump port.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1 through 6, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,449,411 to
Fukuda et al. (Fukuda).
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 12) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 11) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
3
DISCUSSION
Fukuda discloses “a method and apparatus for processing a
substrate by use of plasma, and particularly to a technique that
is suitable for a microwave plasma CVD [chemical vapor
deposition] apparatus for forming a thin film on a substrate”
(column 1, lines 6 through 9). As described in the reference,
FIG. 2 shows the cross section of the principal
portions of the microwave plasma processing apparatus
based on the first embodiment of this invention. The
apparatus comprises a vacuum chamber 5 having a window
4 which transmits a microwave 3, a cylindrical
substrate holder 2 disposed at the bottom of the vacuum
chamber beneath the window 4, reactive gas conduits 6
and 7 for feeding substrate processing gases into the
vacuum chamber, a cleaning gas conduit 8 for feeding a
cleaning gas into the vacuum chamber, a gas evacuation
port 9 formed in the wall of the vacuum chamber, an
electromagnetic winding 10 disposed near the window 4
outside the vacuum chamber 5 for producing a magnetic
field in the vacuum chamber, and a high-frequency power
source 12 connected to the substrate holder 2.
. . .
This apparatus was used to form a SiO2 film on the
substrate 1 by feeding SiH4 gas at 20 ml/min and O2 gas
at 200 ml/min into the vacuum chamber 5 through the
reactive gas conduits 6 and 7, evacuating the vacuum
chamber to 0.3 Pa, applying a magnetic flux at a flux
density of 875 gauss or more produced by the
electromagnetic winding in a direction substantially
normal to the substrate, and applying a microwave of
600 W. After microwave application of five minutes, a
SiO2 film with a thickness of 1 µm was formed on the
substrate. . . .
After the substrate 1 with the SiO2 film being
formed thereon was taken out, the vacuum chamber was
cleaned (etched) by feeding C2F6 gas through the
cleaning gas conduit 8 in place of the reactive gases
previously fed through reactive gas conduits 7 and 8
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
4
[sic, 6 and 7], and applying the same microwave for
five minutes to generate plasma [column 4, line 34,
through column 5, line 12]
The appellants contend that Fukuda would not have rendered
the subject matter recited in claims 1 through 3 and 10 obvious
within the meaning of § 103(a) because it is silent as to the
manner in which the processing gases are introduced into the
chamber and thus non-responsive to the gas feeding limitations in
these claims.
Fukuda, however, clearly shows in Figure 2 that the gases
for processing substrate 1 are separately introduced into the
chamber 5 via two conduits 6 and 7 located on the same side of
the chamber just above the gas evacuation port 9 and that the
cleaning gas is separately introduced into the chamber 5 via a
third conduit 8 also located just above the gas evacuation port.
Fukuda additionally teaches that when the conduits 6 and 7 are
simultaneously opened to feed the processing gases into the
chamber, the conduit 8 is closed or blocked. This disclosure
would have suggested, if it does not actually teach, the step of
selectively opening a first number of a plurality of gas nozzles
(the ends of Fukuda’s processing gas conduits 6 and 7) while
selectively blocking a second number of the plurality of gas
nozzles (the end of Fukuda’a cleaning gas conduit 8) as recited
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
2 The appellants’ specification (see, for example, pages 2,
5 and 6) explains that the asymmetric flow counteracts non-
uniform distribution of reactive species and by products by
introduction into the chamber primarily through nozzles located
near or proximate the pump port.
5
in claim 1. Moreover, the appellants have not cogently
explained, nor is it apparent, (1) why such introduction of the
processing gases into Fukuda’s chamber would not inherently
produce an “asymmetric flow” in the sense disclosed in the
appellants’ specification and broadly recited in claim 1, (2) why
the processing gases are not introduced into the chamber via
nozzles “proximate” a pump port (Fukuda’s gas evacuation port 9)
to the extent disclosed in the appellants’ specification and
broadly recited in claim 3, (3) why the asymmetric flow would not
inherently “counteract” a non-uniform distribution of reactive
species and by products in the chamber as disclosed in the
appellants’ specification2 and broadly recited in claim 2, or (4)
why Fukuda’a nozzles (the ends of conduits 6, 7 and 8) are not
“located mostly proximate” a pump port (Fukuda’s gas evacuation
port 9) as broadly recited in claim 10.
Hence, on its face Fukuda would have suggested, if it does
not actually teach, a processing method and apparatus responsive
to the argued limitations in claims 1 through 3 and 10. We shall
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
3 The etching process disclosed by Fukuda occurs during the
chamber cleaning phase after the substrate 1 has been removed
from the chamber.
6
therefore sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
these claims as being unpatentable over Fukuda.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claims 4, 5 and 11 since the appellants,
allowing these claims to stand or fall with their respective
parent claims 1 and 10 (see pages 13, 16 and 17 in the main
brief), have not disputed the merits thereof.
We shall not sustain, however, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over Fukuda.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further defines the workpiece
processing step set forth in the parent claim as including “an
etch process.” The examiner has failed to point out, and it is
not evident, how or why Fukuda teaches or would have suggested
processing the workpiece, i.e., substrate 1, with an etching
process.3
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6,
10 and 11 is affirmed with respect to claims 1 through 5, 10 and
11, and reversed with respect to claim 6.
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
JOHN P. MCQUADE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JPM/kis
Appeal No. 2002-1642
Application 09/300,563
8
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
2881 SCOTT BOULEVARD M/S 2061
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050