Li, Hongqi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 12, 2020

14612926 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2020)

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.
14/612,926 02/03/2015 Hongqi Li 2269-11659.1(2012-0361.01 4911
63162 7590 03/12/2020
TRASK BRITT, P.C./ MICRON TECHNOLOGY
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
EXAMINER
CULBERT, CHRISTOPHER A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2815
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2020 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):
USPTOMail@traskbritt.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONGQI LI, ANURAG JINDAL, and IRINA VASILYEVA
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926
Technology Center 2800
Before JULIA HEANEY, DEBRA L. DENNETT, and
SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13–19 and 22, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. Claims 1–12 have been

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification dated February 3, 2015
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated February 2, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief dated May 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
dated September 25, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief dated November 16,
2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Micron Technology,
Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

2
withdrawn. Claims 20 and 21 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal relates to a semiconductor device having
exposed conductive vias. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 13, reproduced below, is the sole
independent claim on appeal and illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
13. A semiconductor device, comprising: conductive vias
extending through a thickness of a substrate, each of the conductive
vias comprising an exposed surface proximate a backside surface of
the substrate;
a barrier material laterally adjacent to portions of the
conductive vias extending from the backside surface of the substrate,
wherein the barrier material forms recesses and extends over the
backside surface of the substrate, each recess being defined between
adjacent conductive vias, and wherein each recess has a different
depth than a depth of an adjacent recess; and
a self-planarizing isolation material disposed within each
recess of the barrier material and on a side of at least a portion of the
barrier material opposing the substrate, wherein at least one laterally
extending portion of the barrier material proximate the substrate is
exposed adjacent an associated conductive via of the conductive vias.

Appeal Br. 22 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Henninger
Lin
LAI
Yang

US 2004/0031987 A1
US 2010/0246152 A1
US 2011/0175512 A1
US 2012/0083116 A1

Feb. 19, 2004
Sept. 30, 2010
July 21, 2011
Apr. 5, 2012

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
1. Claims 13–19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre–
AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant
regards as the invention. Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 13–16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (APA)3 in view
of Yang. Final Act. 3.
3. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over APA in view of Yang and further
in view of Lin. Final Act. 6.
4. Claim 19 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over APA in view of Yang and further in view of
Henninger. Final Act. 6.

3 Spec. Figure 1E, ¶ 4. The Examiner refers to the publication of the
Specification, US 2015/0145146 A1, dated May 28, 2015.
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

4
5. Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over APA in view of Yang and further in view of Lai.
Final Act. 7.
OPINION

Rejection 1: § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner determines that the rejected claims are indefinite
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to
determine whether a material can be characterized as a “self-planarizing
isolation material.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner determines that “self-
planarizing isolation material” is unclear because “[t]here is no explicit
definition provided in the disclosure, applicant gives examples but there are
no limits per se. At best the claim requires at formation the material to have
‘low viscosity’ a relative term without limit in the specification, but does not
limit the end product (product by process).” Id. at 2–3. The Examiner
explains that the term “self-planarizing isolation material” in a device claim
is indefinite because a device in final form is already cured and therefore its
material is no longer self-planarizing. Ans. 4.
Appellant argues that the Specification defines and explains the term
“self-planarizing isolation material” such that a person of ordinary skill
would readily understand what is claimed. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant relies on
examples in the Specification of a “self-planarizing isolation material” and
its properties. Id. at 8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 25, 37). Appellant further argues that
non-patent literature shows that “self-planarizing” when used in reference to
materials is a term of art, and would readily be understood by one of
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

5
ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 9–10 (citing Lee, 4 Matsuura5). Appellant
further argues the fact that a self-planarizing material has been cured does
not change a material from being capable of “self-planarizing.” Reply Br. 3.
In determining whether a claim is unpatentable under § 112, second
paragraph, we look to whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
Specification. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d
1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA
1971) (“[T]he definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed—not
in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art and of the
particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing
the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.”).
Here, the Examiner’s reasoning that “self-planarizing isolation
material” is indefinite because “there is no explicit definition provided in the
disclosure” (Final Act. 2–3), and the final form of the device would have
already been planarized by curing (Ans. 4.), demonstrates harmful error. An
explicit definition is not required for a person of ordinary skill to understand
the claim language in light of the Specification. Further, the fact that the
Specification’s examples use the word “may” is not dispositive of how a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed. In the
context of the Specification, a person of ordinary skill would have

4 Sang-Joon John Lee et al., Microfabrication for Microfluidics, Integrated
Microsystems Series, pp. 173–75 (2010). (“Lee”)
5 M. Matsuura et al., A Highly Reliable Self-planarizing Low-k Intermetal
Dielectric for Sub-quarter Micron Interconnects, Tech. Digest of IEDM; pp.
785–88 (1997). (“Matsuura”)
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

6
understood that a “self-planarizing isolation material” is a material that is
capable of “self-planarizing.” Accordingly, we reverse the rejection.
Rejections 2–5: § 103
The Examiner finds that APA teaches a semiconductor device
comprising conductive vias, a barrier material forming recesses with each
recess having a different depth than a depth of an adjacent recess, and an
isolation material within each recess, as recited in claim 13. Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner finds that APA does not specifically teach that the isolation
material is a self-planarizing isolation material, but finds that Yang teaches
polyimide which is a self planarizing isolation material. Id. The Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to have selected a self-planarizing material such as Yang’s polyimide,
on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Id. at 5.
Recesses
Appellant argues that while variations of substrate thickness in APA’s
device may result in a recess having a different depth than an adjacent
recess, APA does not teach that each of the recesses has a different depth
than an adjacent recess. Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner responds that the term
“recesses” as recited in claim 13 does not require every recess to have a
different depth than an adjacent recess, but only that a subset of recesses
have different depths. Ans. 5–6. Appellant’s argument does not persuasively
identify error because the claim term “recesses” only requires two recesses
even if there are additional recesses in the device. Therefore, “each recess”
having “a different depth than a depth of an adjacent recess” refers to at least
two adjacent recesses having different depths.
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

7
Self-Planarizing Isolation Material
Appellant argues that while Yang discloses that the dielectric layer
can include polyimide, there is no disclosure that the dielectric layer is self-
planarizing material. Appeal Br. 13. The Examiner responds by arguing
paagraph 25 of the Specification identifies polyimide as an exemplary self-
planarizing isolation material. Ans. 6. Appellant does not dispute that Yang
discloses polyimide, and Appellant’s argument does not persuasively
identify error.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 13.
Appellant does not separately argue any of the dependent claims,
beyond repeating arguments discussed above for independent claim 13,
except for claim 19. Claim 19 depends from claim 13 and additionally
recites “an at least substantially conformal isolation material comprising
silicon oxide interposed between the barrier material and the self-planarizing
isolation material.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner finds that APA does not specifically teach a conformal
silicon oxide isolation material interposed between the barrier material and
the self-planarizing material, but finds that Henninger teaches it was well
known in the art to form a multilayer barrier material of silicon nitride and
silicon oxide. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Henninger ¶ 115). The Examiner
determines it would have been obvious to use Henninger’s multilayer barrier
material in the device of APA, on the basis of the multilayer barrier
material’s suitability for the intended use. Id. at 7. Appellant argues that
while Henninger teaches a diffusion barrier that may be multilayered it does
not teach a silicon oxide material disposed between the diffusion barrier
layer and the self-planarizing isolation material. Appeal Br. 15–16. The
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

8
Examiner responds by arguing that Appellant does not provide any evidence
refuting the combination of references presented in the Final Rejection. Ans.
8–9.
Appellant’s argument persuasively identifies harmful error because
the Examiner’s proposed combination of APA, Yang, and Henninger does
not teach or suggest a silicon oxide layer interposed between the barrier
material and the self-planarizing isolation material. The Examiner’s
proposed change is focused on modifying the barrier material of APA from a
layer of silicon nitride to a multilayer. Final Act. 6–7. The end result of this
modification would be a multilayer barrier material adjacent to the self-
planarizing isolation material, but there would not be silicon oxide
interposed between the multilayer barrier material and the self-planarizing
isolation material, as required by claim 19. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of claim 19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
13–19 and
22
112, second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 13–19 and
22
13–16 103(a) APA, Yang 13–16
17–18 103(a) APA, Yang, Lin 17–18
19 103(a) APA, Yang, Henninger 19
22 103(a) APA, Yang, Lai 22
Overall
Outcome:
13–18 and
22
19
Appeal 2019-001024
Application 14/612,926

9

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART