NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2020

2019003969 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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.
15/488,084 04/14/2017 VINCENT GAMBIN NGC-00220(008584-0030) 1028
64728 7590 05/28/2020
SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP
NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION
42690 WOODWARD AVENUE
SUITE 300
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304
EXAMINER
TRAN, TONY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2020 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):
cgolupski@shumaker.com
hpeppard@shumaker.com
tlopez@shumaker.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT GAMBIN, LOAN T. LE,
MICHAEL D. LANGE, and JESSE B. TICE

Appeal 2019-003969
Application 15/488,084
Technology Center 2800
Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
WHITNEY N. WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–5 and 7–20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003969
Application 15/488,084

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal
and is set forth below (with text in bold for emphasis):
1. A method for depositing a semiconductor layer structure, said
method comprising:
providing a wafer substrate;
providing a metal catalyst layer on the wafer substrate;
depositing at least one black phosphorus monolayer on the metal
catalyst layer by heating a phosphorus material to generate a
phosphorus flux that adheres to the metal catalyst layer; and
heating the wafer substrate to a temperature above a
temperature that causes red phosphorus to evaporate from
the wafer substrate, but does not cause black phosphorus to
evaporate from the wafer substrate.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Michel US 5,032,472 July 16, 1991
Baillargeon US 6,110,438 Aug. 29, 2000
Lee US 2016/0343805 A1 Nov. 24, 2016
Kwon US 2018/0138039 A1 May 17, 2018

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Lee in view of Baillargeon.
2. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Lee and Baillargeon in view of Michel.
Appeal 2019-003969
Application 15/488,084

3
3. Claim 1–3, 8, and 12–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kwon in view of Baillargeon.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in 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.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal (including the Examiner’s Answer, the Appeal
Brief, and the Reply Brief), we are persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections and add the
following primarily for emphasis.
We refer to the Examiner’s position as set forth on pages 1–5 of the
Final Office Action regarding Rejection 1. Therein, the Examiner
recognizes, inter alia, that Lee does not teach heating the substrate to a
temperature above a temperature that causes red phosphorus to evaporate
from the substrate, but does not cause black phosphorus to evaporate from
the substrate, as required by Appellant’s claims. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner relies upon Baillargeon for teaching this claim element. Id.
Specifically, the Examiner cites column 2, line 63 to column 3, line 6,
and column 3, ll. 7–27, of Baillargeon on page 3 of the Final Office Action
as teaching this claim element. These sections are recreated below.
Thermal cycling involves heating the red phosphorus container 11 to a
temperature above 350 °C, and preferably in the range 360-400 °C,
with a ramp of preferably 5-20 °C/min. The red phosphorus is allowed
to cool to a temperature below 300 °C, and preferably below 250 °C,
Appeal 2019-003969
Application 15/488,084

4
e.g. 200-240 °C. The cooling rate may be compared to, or more rapid
than, the heating rate. This completes one cycle. The red phosphorus
is thermally cycled in this manner for three cycles or more, at which
point the phosphorus undergoes a sharp allotropic phase change from
red to black. The change typically occurs after 3-5 cycles but may
occur later.

During thermal cycling in a vacuum, P4 vapor is constantly emitted
from the red phosphorus charge. This vapor is potentially hazardous.
Fracture STAGE II is provided to reduce the hazard. As the P4 vapor
rises through STAGE II it is converted to P2, the less hazardous form.
STAGE III is provided to condense vapor that is unconverted in
STAGE II. During the cool phase of the cycle, this vapor passes
to STAGE III where it is condensed. Material condensed in
the condenser is potentially hazardous and can be periodically burned,
or the condenser can be removed and cleaned.

The allotropic phase change from red phosphorus to black is
accompanied by a dramatic decline in the amount of P4 vapor emitted
from the charge. This is shown in FIG. 2, where the amount (grams)
of white phosphorus condensed from the P4 vapor emitted by a 78
gram red phosphorus source is plotted vs. the number of thermal
cycles. As seen, the drop in condensed white phosphorus after 4
cycles signals the phase change of the bulk of the charge from red to
black. The emitted P4 vapor can be monitored by a pressure gauge.
This phase change is stable and irreversible under the conditions of
the process.

Beginning on page 11 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant explains that the
P4 vapor in Baillargeon is tetraphosphorus vapor, which can be various
colors of phosphorous, and not specifically black phosphorus vapor, and is a
byproduct of heating the red phosphorus to the temperatures discussed in
Baillargeon. Appellant explains that the P4 vapor that is emitted from the red
phosphorus change is not deposited on a layer, metal or otherwise, to
provide the black phosphorus. Appellant states that contrary to the
Appeal 2019-003969
Application 15/488,084

5
Examiner’s understanding, the black phosphorus in Baillargeon is removed
from the container 11 after the thermal cycling conversion process from red
phosphorus to black phosphorus, and refers to step (f) of Baillargeon’s claim
1. We thus agree with Appellant that it cannot be said the wafer substrate is
heated to a temperature above a temperature that causes red phosphorus to
evaporate from the wafer substrate, but does not cause black phosphorus to
evaporate from the wafer substrate. Appellant’s Specification on page 5
discloses that the substrate is heated above 70 ℃ but below 200 ℃. The
temperature in Baillargeon is above 350 ℃. Baillargeon, col. 2, ll. 63–67.
Appellant states that it is processes like the Baillargeon process that were
used to obtain black phosphorous for making semiconductor structures prior
to Appellant’s invention, see, for example, paragraph [0006] of the
Specification. Appellant reiterates this line of argument on pages 3–5 of the
Reply Brief.
In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. We also reverse
Rejections 2 and 3 for the same reasons (the Examiner relies upon the same
flawed interpretation of Baillargeon in these other rejections (Final Act. 6–
9)).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Reversed Affirmed
1–5, 7–12,
17–20
103 Lee, Baillargeon 1–5, 7–12,
17–20

Appeal 2019-003969
Application 15/488,084

6
16 103 Lee, Baillargeon,
Michel
16
1–3, 8, 12–
15
103 Kwon, Baillargeon 1–3, 8, 12–
15

Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–20

REVERSED