Marsh, Eugene P. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2020

12235147 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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.
12/235,147 09/22/2008 Eugene P. Marsh MI22-3787 5513
21567 7590 07/29/2020
Wells St. John P.S.
601 W. Main Avenue
Suite 600
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
DEHGHAN, QUEENIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1741
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2020 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):
docketing@wellsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EUGENE P. MARSH, TIM QUICK,
STEFAN UHLENBROCK, and
BRENDA KRAUS
____________

Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANKENBRAND, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 63–70. 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. Appellant identifies Micron Technology, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 23, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 3.
2 Final Action, mailed August 17, 2017 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Background
The subject matter on appeal relates to deposition systems and
methods, including chemical vapor deposition (CVD) systems and methods.
Specification, filed September 22, 2008 (“Spec.”) ¶ 1. The Specification
explains that some reactive materials used for CVD are much more
expensive than others, with precursor compounds (e.g., complex molecules,
such as metallorganic compositions) being more expensive than reactants
(e.g., simple molecules). Id. ¶ 5. Precursor compounds may comprise
precious metals and may be several times more expensive than their
constituent precious metals. Id. ¶ 6. In addition, some precursor compounds
used in CVD processes will remain unreacted and subsequently be
exhausted from the CVD reaction chamber. Id. ¶ 12. Thus, “[i]t would be
desirable to develop systems and methods which reduce expenses associated
with precursor materials.” Id. ¶ 7.
To that end, the Specification discloses methods for reclaiming
unreacted precursor material so the precursor material may be reintroduced
into a deposition process. Id. ¶ 12. Specifically, the Specification discloses
a deposition process for recycling trapped precursor material that includes,
among other things, a pair of precursor traps configured to trap precursor
under a first condition and to release the trapped precursor under a second
condition. Id. ¶¶ 13, 17.
Of the appealed claims, claim 63 is independent. Claim 63 is
representative of the subject matter on appeal, and is reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

3
63. A CVD method, the method comprising:
flowing a mixture of materials into a reaction chamber,
the mixture comprising deposition precursor
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt and reactants;
reacting the reactants with the (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt to
form a deposit, some of the (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt remaining
unreacted;
after the reacting, exhausting the reaction chamber, the
exhaust from the reaction chamber comprising remaining
unreacted (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt and reactants;
flowing the exhaust across at least one of at least two
parallel traps;
trapping at least a portion of unreacted
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt relative to other components of the exhaust
in the one trap while maintaining the one trap at less than about
0°C;
while trapping at least a portion of unreacted
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt relative to other components of the exhaust
in the one trap, releasing trapped precursor from the other of the
two parallel traps while maintaining the other trap at greater
than 25°C; and
transferring the released trapped precursor directly from
the other of the two parallel traps to the reaction chamber to
form part of the mixture of materials.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App’x).
The References
Peck et al. US 2008/0206445 A1 Aug. 28, 2008
Schmitt et al. US 6,402,806 B1 June 11, 2002
Li et al. US 6,921,710 B2 July 26, 2005
Kodas et al., The Chemistry of Metal CVD, John Wiley & Sons, p. 336
(2008).

Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

4
The Rejection
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 63–70 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Peck in view of Schmitt, Li, and Kodas. Final
Act. 2–6.
OPINION
Appellant presents arguments for claim 63. Appeal Br. 5–17.
Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 64–70. Id. at 18.
Therefore, claims 64–70 stand or fall with claim 63. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds Peck discloses a CVD method that includes
flowing a mixture of precursor material and a reactant into a reaction
chamber, flowing exhaust across a precursor trap, and releasing trapped
precursor to transfer it directly back into the reaction chamber. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner finds Peck does not suggest at least two parallel traps and
alternating between them, but finds Schmitt discloses a CVD process that
uses parallel cold traps. Id. at 2–3. The Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious to modify Peck in view of Schmitt to use parallel traps that
would allow one trap to trap precursor while the other trap releases precursor
and that this would provide a continuous and efficient deposition process.
Id. at 3–4.
The Examiner finds Peck discloses a platinum precursor material and
Li discloses the use of methylcyclopentadienyl (trimethyl) platinum
((CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt) as a precursor in a CVD process. Id. at 4. The
Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Peck to use
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt as a precursor because it allows for better coverage
during deposition. Id. at 4.
Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

5
The Examiner further finds Peck discloses a low operating trap
temperature, such as -50°C or -100°C. Id. at 4. The Examiner reasons that a
higher temperature would have been necessary to release trapped precursor
and finds that Kodas discloses higher vapor pressures for
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt at above 25°C. Id. at 4–5. In view of this, the Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to use cold trap temperatures to trap
unreacted precursor and to set Peck’s trap temperature above 25°C in order
to release trapped (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt precursor. Id. at 5.
Appellant addresses the Examiner’s modification of Peck in view of
Schmitt, arguing that the Examiner uses a skewed interpretation of Schmitt’s
teachings because Schmitt uses a single hot trap for unreacted precursors and
multiple cold traps for trapping organic breakdown products, which are not
recycled back to a reaction chamber. Appeal Br. 8–12, 15, 17; Reply Brief,
filed June 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”), 3–6. Thus, Appellant argues that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have reviewed Schmitt and would have used a
hot trap for precursors, not a cold trap, and that one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have combined Peck and Schmitt. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br.
6–7.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive because they fail to consider what Peck’s and Schmitt’s
combined teachings would have taught or suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art.
Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

6
Peck teaches that precursors in CVD can be used at a rate as low as
10% or less and, therefore, most of the introduced organometallic compound
may be exhaust gas. Peck ¶ 3. Peck also recognizes that “[o]rganometallic
compounds are generally expensive” and expresses a need in the art for
selectively recovering unreacted organometallic compounds from the
exhaust gases of CVD processes. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6–7. Specifically, Peck discloses
controlling the temperature of a variable temperature condenser to recover
unreacted organometallic compounds. Id. ¶¶ 8–10. According to Peck, the
organometallic compounds to be used in Peck’s invention are not
particularly limited and can be a platinum compound. Id. ¶ 60. In addition,
content recovered in Peck’s process may be conveyed directly back to the
input of the process. Id. ¶ 70. Therefore, Peck’s disclosure supports the
Examiner’s findings discussed above and in the Final Action.
Schmitt discloses a process that recovers compounds from a CVD
process for depositing copper layers. Schmitt, 1:11–15. Schmitt also
recognizes that some precursor material does not react, which in the case of
copper precursor can lead to deposition on a hot vacuum pump. Id. at 2:4–6.
In view of this, Schmitt discloses using a hot trap to remove unreacted
precursor from the exhaust of a CVD process and removing a metal-organic
reaction byproduct via a cold trap. Id. at 2:17–28, 3:8–18, 5:66–6:6.
Schmitt further teaches the use of a bypass cold trap in parallel with a
primary cold trap so one cold trap can be removed and replaced while the
other is in use without disrupting product flow through a processing
chamber. Id. at 6:22–25, 6:36–7:13.
In response to Appellant’s arguments regarding the combination of
Peck and Schmitt, the Examiner explains that Schmitt was relied upon for
Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

7
the general teaching of parallel traps. Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 30,
2019 (“Ans.”), 5. Nonetheless, the Examiner also finds that Schmitt teaches
the use of parallel traps for its hot trap. Id. (quoting Schmitt, 6:22–28). In
other words, the Examiner explains how Schmitt not only teaches using
parallel traps to recapture compounds from CVD exhaust gas (and that one
trap can be used to trap material while the other does not), but also teaches
using parallel traps to recapture precursor compounds from CVD exhaust
gas. Schmitt’s disclosure further supports the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying Peck in view of Schmitt because it teaches that parallel traps
avoid disrupting product flow through the processing chamber of a CVD
process. Schmitt, 6:22–28.
Appellant next contends that Schmitt is directed to using a specific
copper organometallic precursor and does not suggest that its process can be
used for other organometallic precursors. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 6, 8–9.
In view of this, Appellant argues that a combination of Peck and Schmitt
would have required improper picking and choosing of teachings rather than
viewing each of the references as a whole. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant
also argues that because Schmitt discloses purification before transfer of
trapped materials, the combination of Peck and Schmitt would not have
resulted in direct transfer of trapped material to a reaction chamber. Appeal
Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 9.
These arguments are also unpersuasive because they do not properly
consider what the combined disclosures of Peck and Schmitt would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. As noted above, Peck discloses
using various organometallic precursors, including platinum compounds,
and also discloses that recovered content may be conveyed directly back to
Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

8
the input of the CVD process. Peck ¶¶ 60, 70. Appellant’s argument that
Schmitt does not suggest that its process can be used for other precursors
appears to rely on the bodily incorporation of Schmitt’s process into Peck’s,
which is not the proper basis for determining obviousness. Further, to the
extent Schmitt discloses purification before transferring captured material
back to a reaction chamber, Appellant’s arguments fail to explain
sufficiently why the direct transfer process Peck discloses would not have
been obvious when modifying Peck in view of Schmitt.
Appellant further asserts that Peck discloses “a broad swath of
organometallics,” Peck does not mention what metal the organometallics
contain or what the organic portion is, and Peck discloses only one complete
organometallic but it is a rhodium organometallic. Appeal Br. 5–7.
Appellant acknowledges that Li discloses (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt as a precursor
compound, but argues “Li makes no mention of trapping and/or capturing
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt.” Id. at 14; Reply Br. 7.
These arguments do not properly address the Examiner’s rejection,
which finds that Peck discloses trapping precursor material that can be a
platinum organometallic compound. Final Act. 2; Peck ¶¶ 10, 60. Although
Peck does not specifically disclose using (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt, Li teaches
using this compound as a precursor in a CVD process and that this
compound allows for better step coverage during deposition. Li, 3:11–24,
4:45–55. Therefore, Li’s disclosure supports the Examiner’s rationale for
modifying Peck to include (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt as a precursor.
Appellant further asserts that although the Examiner opines
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt is expensive and this would have provided a reason to
trap that compound, “there are many other techniques that may be used to
Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

9
more efficiently use the compound and thereby forego the expense of lost or
unreacted compound.” Reply Br. 7. This argument is unpersuasive because
it is mere attorney argument that fails to explain what these other techniques
may be or why it would not have been obvious to modify Peck, which
contemplates platinum organometallic precursors, to use Li’s specific
platinum organometallic precursor, which Li describes as advantageous.
As to the trapping temperatures, Appellant argues that
organometallics other than the one Peck discloses “may require different
temperatures and/or additional separations; none of which are predictable.”
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also contends that Peck discloses only one specific
organometallic, Peck’s trapping temperatures regard that specific
organometallic, and it is unreasonable to ignore Peck’s teachings “and
simply plug in the physical parameters of the (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt and opine
that it will yield predictable results.” Id. at 16–17; Reply Br. 10–11.
According to Appellant, the proposed modification to use
(CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt as a precursor also involves a mixture that contains
process gases and reaction byproducts, which would impact selecting the
trapping and releasing temperatures. Appeal Br. 17. Thus, Appellant argues
the rejection relies upon “a sizeable leap that can only be attributed to
hindsight reconstruction.” Id.
As noted above, Peck discloses the use of various organometallic
precursors, including platinum organometallic compounds. Peck ¶¶ 10, 60.
The Examiner also finds that Peck discloses a low temperature (e.g., -50°C)
for its condenser to trap material. Final Act. 4; Peck ¶¶ 8, 17, 68. Therefore,
Peck contemplates temperatures for trapping various compounds, including
Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

10
platinum organometallic compounds, and such temperatures can be less than
about 0°C, as claim 63 recites.
Claim 63 also recites that another trap is maintained at greater than
25°C to release trapped precursor. The Examiner does not find that Peck
discloses this operating temperature for its condenser. However, Appellant
acknowledges “Peck is clear that it is the vapor of the process gas that is
most important when determining trapping temperatures.” Appeal Br. 16.
Indeed, Peck teaches that when experimental data is not available, “vapor
pressure data can be used to determine the optimum temperature which
maximizes both retention of the desired component and separation
selectivity.” Peck ¶ 25. The Examiner’s rejection appears to follow this
reasoning, finding that Kodas teaches relatively high vapor pressure values
for (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt above 25°C. Final Act. 5; Kodas, 336. In other
words, Kodas demonstrates temperatures at which (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt
would have a relatively high vapor pressure, which indicates a suitable
temperature for releasing (CH3)3(CH3C5H4)Pt from a trap.
In view of the above, Appellant does not identify a reversible error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 63. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 63–70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2019-005267
Application 12/235,147

11
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 63–70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Peck, Schmitt, Li, and Kodas is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
63–70 103(a) Peck, Schmitt, Li, Kodas 63–70

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