Ex Parte Yoon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

11736514 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111736,514 04/17/2007
119049 7590 02/18/2016
MPG, LLP and Lam Research Corp,
Albert Penilla
710 Lakeway Drive
Suite 200
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
H yungsuk Alexander Yoon
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.
LAM2P604 3928
EXAMINER
HASSANZADEH, PARVIZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
lamptomail@mpiplaw.com
mpdocket@mpiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HYUNGSUK ALEXANDER YOON,
MIKHAIL KOROLIK, FRITZ C. REDEKER,
JOHN M. BOYD, and YEZDI DORDI
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 29--41 of
Application 11/736,514 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final Act.
(January 3, 2013). Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Lam Research Corporation is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
BACKGROUND
The '514 Application describes apparatus and methods that are useful
in the fabrication of semiconductor devices and the like. Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1
is representative of the '514 Application's claims and is reproduced from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief with the limitations that are central to
issues discussed in this appeal italicized:
1. A chamber for treating a surface of a substrate, the
chamber comprising:
(a) a substrate support configured to support the
substrate;
(b) a proximity head configured to dispense a treatment
gas to treat an active process region of a substrate surface under
a surface of the proximity head,
wherein the surface of the proximity head covers
the active process region of the substrate surface, and
wherein the proximity head has a gas injection
head with a plurality of gas injection holes at the surface
of the proximity head for dispensing the treatment gas
into a reaction volume between the surface of the
proximity head and the substrate, and
wherein the proximity head has two vacuum heads
with one vacuum head on each side of the gas injection
head with the plurality of gas injection holes,
wherein the two vacuum heads are coupled
to vacuum channels to pull excess treatment gas
from the reaction volume,
the proximity head having an excitation chamber to
excite the treatment gas before the treatment gas is dispensed on
the active process region of the substrate surface,
wherein the plurality of gas injection holes are
arranged next to one another and connect to gas channels,
the gas channels connect to the excitation chamber, and
2
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
the excitation chamber connects to a gas line of the
proximity head,
wherein the excitation chamber has a primary
dimension that is larger than a primary dimension of the
gas line, the gas channels and the plurality of gas
injection holes,
the excitation chamber disposed within the
proximity head and connected to surface of the proximity
head by the plurality of gas injection holes,
wherein the dispensed treatment gas is
plasmarized in the excitation chamber; and
( c) an atomic layer deposition (ALD) head for depositing
a layer on the substrate surface, wherein the proximity head is
arranged beside the ALD head within the chamber,
wherein the ALD head is coupled to a first and a
second container supply for receiving a first and a second
reactant, and the proximity head is coupled to a single
container supply for receiving the treatment gas.
Appeal Br. 27-28 (Claims App.) (indentation, some paragraphing, and
emphasis added). 2
2 Appellants have not numbered the pages of the Claims Appendix. For ease
of reference, we continue the Appeal Briefs numbering scheme.
3
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains3 the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9--12, 34, 36-39, and 41 4 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki, 5
Ellis, 6 and Chang. 7 Final Act. 3.
2. Claims 13 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, Chang, and
Nakamura. 8 Final Act. 10.
3. Claims 29, 31-33, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, Chang,
Koinuma, 9 and Strang. 1° Final Act. 10-11.
4. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, Chang, Koinuma, Strang, and
Nakamura. Final Act. 12.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 29--41
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, i-f 2 as indefinite. Answer 12.
4 We have corrected the Examiner's summary statement of the rejection to
accurately identify the claims subject to this rejection and to reflect
Appellants' cancellation of claim 8 after entry of the Final Action.
5 US 2002/0064597 Al, published May 30, 2002.
6 US 5,487,784, issued January 30, 1996.
7 US 2005/0271814 Al, published December 8, 2005.
8 US 2004/0238124 Al, published December 2, 2004.
9 US 5,549,780, issued August 27, 1996.
10 US 2005/0284370 Al, published December 29, 2005.
4
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9--12, 3 4, 3 6-
39, and 41 as unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, and
Chang. Final Act. 3.
Appellants present separate arguments for reversal of the rejection
with respect to each of claims 1, 6, and 34. We shall address Appellants'
arguments with respect to each of these claims separately.
Claim 1. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 as
unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, and Chang should be
reversed because (1) the combination of references does not describe or
suggest the claimed limitation that "the gas channels connect to the
excitation chamber," Appeal Br. 7-11, and (2) the Examiner erred by
finding that the combination of Suzuki and Chang describe an apparatus
comprising a proximity head arranged beside an atomic layer deposition
(ALD) head, id. at 11-13. For the reasons set forth below, we are not
persuaded by these arguments.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of Suzuki, Ellis, and Chang describes or suggests the claimed
proximity head which has an excitation chamber connected to a gas line and
to gas channels that are connected to a plurality of gas injection holes. Id. at
7-11.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Suzuki describes an
apparatus having a proximity head
with a plurality of gas injection holes (outlets of 54) at the
surface of the proximity head ... , the proximity head having
an excitation chamber 19 disposed within the proximity head
... ; wherein the plurality of gas injection holes (outlets of 54)
are arranged next to one another and connect to gas channels
5
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
54, the gas channels connect to the excitation chamber, and the
excitation chamber connects to a gas line 18 of the proximity
head ....
Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner's Answer includes a helpful illustration (reproduced
below) that summarizes the Examiner's position. See Answer 13-15.
FIG. 6
p~~it~l3 1;.~tt ·rs
£ontci5fM?d h~~~n,
s,e~ ~l~ure 1
q
11
t < y...-·o
/l , ~
I
Examiner's annotated copy of Suzuki's Figure 6. Id. at 15.
As can be seen above, Suzuki describes a plasma generating apparatus
having a head 10. Suzuki i-f 45. Head 10 is attached to the glass tube 52
which, in tum, is attached to plate or member 50. Id. at i-f 68. In use, head
10 produces plasma which is expelled from plasma outlet 19 into the volume
defined by head 10 glass tube 52, and planar member 50. The plasma then
passes through perforations 54 in planar member 50. Id. at i-f 63.
The Examiner's annotated version of Figure 6 demonstrates the
Examiner's alternative theories for how Suzuki's apparatus satisfies
6
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
claim 1 's requirement that the gas channels be connected to expectation
chamber.
First, the Examiner found that Suzuki's gas channels are connected to
the excitation chamber because the gas channels are in fluid communication
with the excitation chamber. Answer 13. Appellants argue that this finding
is erroneous because the claim language requires a direct connection
between the gas channels and the excitation chamber. Appeal Br. 8-11.
We, therefore, must construe the claim term "connected."
Appellant's Specification does not use the term connected to describe
the relationship between the excitation chamber and the gas channels.
Rather, the Specification describes the excitation chamber as part of the gas
channel. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 56 ("Figure 5H shows a proximity head 430* a
hot filament 461 in an excitation chamber 466 in the gas channel 411 to heat
up the treatment gas before the treatment gas reaches the substrate
surface."). In view of this narrow disclosure, we construe the term
"connected" as reqmnng a direct connection between the excitation chamber
and the gas channels. 11
Because the '514 Application's claims require a direct connection
between the excitation chamber and the gas channels, we cannot affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under the Examiner's first theory.
In the alternative, the Examiner finds that the volume defined by glass
tube 52 is part of the excitation chamber shown in Suzuki's Figure 6.
11 In view of our interpretation of the term "connected," we need not
consider whether claims directed to an apparatus in which the excitation
chamber is not directly connected to the gas channels would satisfy 3 5
U.S.C. § 112.
7
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
Answer 13-14. Appellants argue that this finding is erroneous because
"[t]here is no excitation of one or more gas is performed in the glass tube 52
to generate plasma .... As such, the glass tube 52 is a separate object,
which is connected to the head 10." Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding the
Examiner's second theory. At the time of the invention, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood the term "chamber" to mean an
enclosed space or cavity. See, e.g., Chamber I Definition of Chamber by
Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.com (February 11, 2016),
h1112;LLw~~:-~!~1:ri~JJ}:_~Y~J2_§1_~_r:_~~?_mL4!~1im1_~_ryL~h;=!m9-~E.
As can be seen in Suzuki's Figure 1, head 10 of Suzuki's plasma
generating apparatus generates plasma in an open volume, and the plasma
exits that volume through plasma outlet 19. As shown in Figure 1, Suzuki's
head 10 does not contain an enclosed space for generating plasma. The
enclosed space or chamber used to generate plasma in Suzuki's apparatus is
defined by planar member 50, glass tube 52, and the lower surfaces of head
10. We have reviewed Appellants' Specification, and cannot find any
reason to require that the entirety of an "excitation chamber" as that term is
used in the '514 Application's claims be used to generate the plasma. Thus,
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "excitation chamber"
includes enclosed spaces, only a part of which are used to generate plasma.
We, therefore, discern no reversible error in the Examiner's finding
that Suzuki's apparatus has an excitation chamber defined by head 10, glass
tube 52, and planar member 50. Appellants do not argue that the gas
channels are not connected to the excitation chamber as defined in the
Examiner's alternative theory.
8
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
Second, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of Suzuki and Chang describe or suggest the claimed chamber
comprising a proximity head arranged beside an ALD head. Appeal Br 11-
13. In particular, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide a
reason why it would have been obvious to combine a proximity head
adjacent to an ALD head. Id. at 12-13.
The Examiner found that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Suzuki at al. to arrange
the proximity head beside (at least one) ALD head, ... for sequential
treatment of a substrate to form a particular film or film combinations on the
substrate." Final Act. 6. Appellants argue that this statement is conclusory
and, therefore, insufficient.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. At the time of the
invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that ALD
processes are typically performed in a partial vacuum. See, e.g., Chang i-f 7.
Such a person also would have known that it is highly desirable to clean the
surface of the substrate before proceeding with an ALD process. See, e.g.,
Spec. i-f 4 ("Background"). Because of these two requirements, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have known that semiconductor processing
equipment of the sort described in Suzuki and Chang typically load and
unload wafers through wafer transfer modules. See Chang i-f 33.
Furthermore, Chang describes the use of different nozzle assemblies in its
apparatus to dispense different reactant gases. Id. at i-f 42.
In view of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to arrange a proximity head beside an ALD head to
sequentially treat a substrate to clean the substrate's surface and then to form
a film or combination of films on the clean surface. The person of ordinary
9
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
skill in the art would have realized that an apparatus combining both the
proximity head and ALD head would minimize the chances of
contamination between cleaning and ALD processing. The combination of
the cleaning and ALD processes in a single chamber would also reduce the
number of wafer transfer modules required to conduct a particular
semiconductor manufacturing process.
Claim 6. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Suzuki, Ellis, and Chang describe or suggest a proximity
head having an axis of rotation that is perpendicular to the substrate. Final
Act. 19--21. In particular, Appellants argue that "[ t ]he Examiner has not
provided a reason as to where or how Chang discloses that reference
numerals '120A-120F' are proximity heads that include an excitation
chamber and dispense a treatment gas, which is excited to be plasmarized."
Appeal Br. 20. Appellants argue Chang's nozzle assemblies 120A-120F are
not proximity heads and do not include an excitation chamber. Id. at 20-21.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner does not rely
upon Chang as describing a proximity head that includes an excitation
chamber or is capable of creating a plasma. See Final Act. 3---6. Appellants'
argument regarding missing claim elements from Chang are misdirected
because the rejection of claim 6 was done on the basis of the combined
descriptions of Suzuki, Ellis, and Chang. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d 413
(CCPA 1981).
Claim 34. Appellants' arguments for reversal of the rejection of claim
34 are substantially identical to those presented with respect to claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 13-19. We affirm the rejection of claim 34 for the reasons we
have given for our affirmance of the rejection of claim 1.
10
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, and 39 ultimately depend from independent
claim 1. Claims 36-38 and 41 ultimately depend from independent claim
34. Appellants argue that these claims are patentable for the same reasons
the independent claims from which they ultimately depend are patentable.
See Appeal Br. 21. Because we have affirmed the rejection of claims 1 and
34, we also affirm the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 36-39, and 41.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 35 as unpatentable
over the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, Chang, and Nakamura. Final Act. 10.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 13 and 35 should be
reversed for the same reasons they presented with respect to independent
claims 1 and 34. We have already affirmed the rejection of these
independent claims. We, therefore, also affirm the rejection of claims 13
and 35.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 29, 31-33, and 40 as
unpatentable over the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, Chang, Koinuma, and
Strang. Final Act. l 0-11.
Appellants argue for reversal of this rejection based upon the
limitations of independent claim 29. See Appeal Br. 22-24. We, therefore,
limit our discussion to this claim. The pending claims 31-33 and 40 will
stand or fall with claim 29. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants argue that the rejection of independent claim 29 should be
reversed for the same reasons they have advanced for the reversal of the
rejection of claims 1 and 34. Appeal Br. 22-23. As discussed above, we are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments in this regard.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred by finding that
Koinuma describes a proximity head coupled to ground as recited in claim
29. Id. at 23-24.
11
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
We are not persuaded by this argument. Koinuma's Figure 1 depicts
outer electrode 12 connected to ground. Figure 1 uses a standard electrical
schematic symbol to show that the electrode is connected to ground. In the
electrical context, ground is defined as an infinite source of or sink for
electrons. Indeed, in standard 3-wire alternating current wiring-such as
that commonly used in housing-the neutral wire is connected to ground at
its source. 12 Thus, Appellants' arguments that Koinuma teaches away from
a connection to ground or that connecting outer electrode 12 to ground
would render Koinuma inoperative are misdirected.
We, therefore, affirm the rejection of claims 29, 31-33, and 40.
Rejection 4. The Examiner rejected claim 30 as unpatentable over
the combination of Suzuki, Ellis, Chang, Koinuma, Strang, and Nakamura.
Final Act. 12.
Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 30 should be reversed for
the reasons they advanced with respect to independent claim 29. Because
we have affirmed the rejection of claim 29, we also affirm the rejection of
claim 30.
12 In the standard 3-wire system, the 3 wires are called "hot," "neutral," and
"ground." See generally Neutral Wire Facts and Mythology, EEITimes (Oct.
2 8, 2004 ), http_;ibYY1-~Y~~-~_t!m_~_§_~_~_QmLQ_Qfllm~gt_~_§Ql_QQ_~_~_g_::J2_22-2_Z2-. The
ground wire is used to connect exposed metal parts on electrical equipment
directly to ground. Id. The hot and neutral wires are the power carrying
wires. "One of the power carrying wires is grounded at the source for
reasons of safety . . . . The only reason why the two wires are differentiated
(hot vs. neutral) is to identify which of the wires is grounded (the neutral
wire)." Id.
12
Appeal2014-004214
Application 11/736,514
CONCLUSION
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
13