KLA-Tencor Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2021

2020002690 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/485,574 09/12/2014 Tomas Plettner KLA-P4119/US 5434
83600 7590 04/08/2021
JDI Patent- KLA-Tencor Corp. Joint Customer Number
Joshua D. Isenberg/ JDI Patent
809 Corporate Way
Fremont, CA 94539
EXAMINER
SENGDARA, VONGSAVANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2021 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):
josh@jdipatent.com
robert@jdipatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TOMAS PLETTNER, MEHRAN NASSER-GHODSI, and
JOHN GERLING1
____________

Appeal 2020-002690
Application 14/485,574
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–6, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as KLA-
Tencor Corp. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002690
Application 14/485,574

2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to semiconductor devices
comprising dummy features. E.g., Spec. 1:10–11; Claim 1. The dummy
features are described as providing a “uniform mechanical load” during a
polishing process in order to prevent over or under polishing. Spec. 6:7–9.
Claim 1 is reproduced below from page 10 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal
Brief (some formatting added):
1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
a plurality of device features formed on a substrate of a doped
semiconductor material,
wherein each device feature includes a barrier island formed
directly on top of the substrate and a metal layer on top of the
barrier island and
wherein adjacent device features are spaced apart by a distance
of 100 microns or more; and
a plurality of dummy features in direct physical contact with the
substrate of the doped semiconductor material and across an
open region between and among the device features of the
plurality of device features,
wherein a size and shape of each dummy feature of the plurality
of dummy features is the same size and shape as the barrier
island,
wherein each dummy feature includes an electrically conductive
barrier island formed directly on top of the substrate and a metal
layer on top of the barrier island.
Appeal 2020-002690
Application 14/485,574

3
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL2
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 as unpatentable over Applicant Admitted
Prior Art (Spec. Fig. 1, “APA”), Yang,3 and Zhong.4
2. Claim 3 over APA, Yang, Zhong, and Nitta.5
3. Claims 5 and 6 over APA, Yang, Zhong, and Noda.6

2 In the event of further examination of the application on appeal, the
Appellant and the Examiner may wish to consider whether the claim
requirement that the dummy feature includes “a metal layer on top of the
barrier island” complies with the written description requirement of 35
U.S.C. § 112(a). The limitation appears to have been added by claim
amendment dated May 22, 2018. The portions of the record cited by the
Appellant as providing support for that limitation do not appear to support
the limitation. See Appeal Br. 3–4. The disclosures in the written
description that (1) the dummy features may be “substantially the same
structure as the barrier islands of the device features,” e.g., Spec. 6:16–17,
and (2) the dummy features may “correspond[] to the structure of the barrier
island,” Spec. at Abstr., appear to be limited to suggesting that the dummy
features and the barrier islands may be substantially the same. The metal
layer on top of the barrier island appears to be described as separate and
distinct from the barrier island itself, e.g., id.; thus, a disclosure that the
dummy feature may correspond to the barrier island may not contemplate or
otherwise show possession of a dummy feature having a metal layer on top
of a barrier island. The drawings, likewise, appear to contemplate a metal
layer only atop the device features; not atop the dummy features. See, e.g.,
Fig. 3F (showing metal layer 304 atop barrier island 306a but not atop
dummy barrier island 306b).
3 US 2012/0156850 A1, published June 21, 2012.
4 US 2011/0073917 A1, published Mar. 31, 2011.
5 US 2009/0072409 A1, published Mar. 19, 2009.
6 US 2011/0189394 A1, published Aug. 4, 2011.
Appeal 2020-002690
Application 14/485,574

4
ANALYSIS
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejections for reasons set forth below, in the
Final Action dated March 7, 2019, and in the Examiner’s Answer.
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. Consistent with the
provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 1 as
representative, and the remaining claims will stand or fall with claim 1.
The Examiner’s statement of the rejection of claim 1 appears at
pages 2–4 of the Final Action. Of particular relevance to the issues raised by
the Appellant in this case, the Examiner finds that the APA’s structure lacks
dummy features, but that both Yang and Zhong disclose the use of dummy
features to improve flatness and uniformity in semiconductor fabrication.
Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner finds that Yang’s dummy features are not the
same size and shape as Yang’s barrier island, but that Zhong teaches a
dummy feature that is the same size and shape as a barrier island. Id. at 4.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate the
dummy features of the prior art into the semiconductor of the APA “to
ensure uniformity of etch rate to form a super-flat surface preventing CMP
dishing phenomenon.” Id. at 4.
The Appellant first argues that Zhong’s dummy features “are not
formed on a semiconductor substrate; they are invariably formed on a
dielectric layer.” Appeal Br. 6.
That argument is not persuasive because “one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
Appeal 2020-002690
Application 14/485,574

5
rejections are based on combinations of references.” See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Appellant does not dispute that, in the
combination proposed by the Examiner, the dummy features are formed on
the semiconductor substrate, as taught by Yang.
The Appellant also argues that Yang’s “dummy hole patterns 130 are
‘designed to have a line width larger than that of the cell hole patterns 110’”
(emphasis added), and, therefore, that Yang teaches away from dummy
features that are “the same size and shape as the barrier island,” as recited by
claim 1. Appeal Br. 6–8 (quoting Yang ¶ 26).
That argument is unpersuasive because it mischaracterizes Yang by
selectively quoting Yang. The Appellant states that Yang ¶ 26 teaches that
dummy hole patterns “are ‘designed’” to have a line width larger than the
cell hole patterns. Appeal Br. 6–7. What the quoted portion of Yang
actually discloses, however, is that “[t]he dummy hole patterns 130 may be
designed to have a line width larger than that of the cell hole patterns.”
Yang ¶ 26 (emphasis added). Moreover, the very next sentence of Yang
states, “[i]n addition, the dummy hole patterns 130 may be designed to have,
for example, the same or other shape as the cell hole patterns 110.” Id. A
person of ordinary skill in the art, through the use of only ordinary creativity,
would have understood from Yang that the dummy hole patterns may be the
same size/shape as the cell hole patterns. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also id. at 421 (“A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
Appeal 2020-002690
Application 14/485,574

6
automaton.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Yang teaches away
from the subject matter of claim 1 or from combination with Zhong.
The Appellant also argues that Zhong does not teach dummy features
that are the same size and shape as the barrier island because the Examiner
relies solely on a figure in support of that finding, and figures cannot be used
to show feature proportions. See Appeal Br. 7.
That argument is not persuasive of reversible error. Although we
agree with the Appellant that Zhong’s figure likely could not reasonably be
used, for example, to define the precise dimensions of a barrier island and a
dummy feature, we nevertheless determine that a person of ordinary skill in
the art reviewing Zhong reasonably would have understood that the barrier
island and the dummy feature may be the same shape and size because
Zhong depicts them as being the same shape and size. See Zhong Fig. 3b.
The Examiner is not relying on Zhong for precise dimensions, but for the
more general proposition that the barrier island and the dummy feature may
be the same shape and size, which is also consistent with the disclosures of
Yang discussed above. The record as a whole shows that it was known in
the art that dummy features could be either the same size as a barrier island
or a different size. On this record, the Appellant has not persuasively
established reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that the prior art
teaches or suggests dummy features that are the same size and shape as the
barrier island. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections . . . .”). A person of ordinary skill
in the art would have had reason to use a dummy feature that is the same
size as the barrier island because the art teaches that such dummy features
Appeal 2020-002690
Application 14/485,574

7
assist with flatness and uniformity in semiconductor fabrication. E.g.,
Zhong ¶ 28.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 8, 9 103 APA, Yang, Zhong 1, 2, 4, 8, 9
3 103 APA, Yang, Zhong, Nitta 3
5, 6 103 APA, Yang, Zhong, Noda 5, 6
Overall
Outcome 1–6, 8, 9
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