TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 202014308976 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/308,976 06/19/2014 Sheng-Wen Chen 2013-1662/24061.2762 8530 42717 7590 05/20/2020 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (24061) IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER NGUYEN, SOPHIA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2822 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2020 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SHENG-WEN CHEN, YU-TING LIN, JEMMY TSAI, WEI-MING YOU, and TING-CHUN WANG Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 Technology Center 2800 Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, JULIA HEANEY, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, 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, 4, 6, 9–12, 16, 18, 21–23, and 28–33. 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 the real party in interest as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to a semiconductor substrate and related annealing process. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative, and we reproduce claim 1 below while adding emphasis to recitations at issue in this appeal: 1. A method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising: providing a substrate having a source/drain region formed therein and a dielectric layer formed thereover; forming an opening m the dielectric layer, wherein the opening exposes the source/drain region; depositing a metal on the substrate in the opening; performing a first annealing process that causes the metal to react with a portion of the substrate disposed therebelow, wherein a reaction of the metal and the portion of the substrate forms a metal silicide in the source/drain region, and wherein the first annealing process has a ramping up profile showing a rapid temperature ascension, and wherein the ramping up profile of the first annealing process is different from a rampmg down profile of the first annealing process, and wherein the first annealing process is performed such that a peak temperature is in a range between about 200 degrees Celsius to about 300 degrees Celsius and is maintained for a time duration greater than about 0.5 seconds but less than about 5 seconds to reduce an agglomeration of silicide grain particles in the metal silicide; removing portions of the metal that have not reacted with the portion of the substrate; and thereafter performing a second annealing process. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated August 10, 2017 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed February 23, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer dated June 7, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed October 30, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Name Robertson et al. (“Robertson”) Lee et al. (“Lee”) Yin et al. (“Yin”) Wang Reference US 7,335,595 B2 US 2012/0208333 A1 US 2012/0313158 A1 US 2015/0035055 A1 Date Feb. 26, 2008 Aug. 16, 2012 Dec. 13, 2012 Feb. 5, 2015 Lauwers et al., Low temperature spike annel for Ni-silicide formation 76 MICROELECTRONIC ENG. 303–310 (2004) (“Lauwers”). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains (Ans. 2) the following rejections on appeal: A. Claims 1, 11, and 18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 29 and 30 of Application No. 14/209,374 in view of Lauwers and Wang. Final Act. 2. B. Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yin in view of Lauwers and Robertson. Id. at 6. C. Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yin in view of Lauwers, Robertson, and Lee. Id. at 11. D. Claims 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, 30, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yin in view of Huang, Robertson, Lauwers, and Lee. Id. at 12. E. Claims 18, 23, and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yin in view of Robertson, Lauwers, and Lee. Id. at 20. F. Claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yin in view of Lauwers, Robertson, Lee, and Huang. Id. at 12. Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 4 G. Claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Yin in view of Robertson, Lauwers, Lee, and Huang. Id. at 12. 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 and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Objection to Specification. Appellant argues against the Examiner’s objection regarding Figure 6B. Decisions an examiner makes during examination of a discretionary, procedural, or nonsubstantive nature not directly connected with the merits of issues involving rejections are reviewable by petition under 37 CFR § 1.181 to the Director, not by appeal. In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984‒85 (Fed. Cir. 2002). We, therefore, decline to address this issue. Rejection A, non-statutory double patenting. Appellant does not address this rejection. We, thus, summarily affirm the rejection. Rejections B, D, E (claims 18 and 32), G, obviousness: Appellant does not present substantively distinct arguments for these rejections and argues the claims of these rejections as a group (aside from claim 23 subject Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 5 to rejection E which we separately address along with rejection B). See Appeal Br. 12–20. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we limit our discussion to claim 1, and all other claims on appeal stand or fall together with claim 1. The Examiner finds that Yin teaches most steps of claim 1’s method. Final Act. 6 (citing Yin). The Examiner finds that Yin does not teach claim 1’s conditions of the first annealing step and finds that Yin does not teach a second annealing step. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds, however, that Lauwers teaches an annealing process where a peak temperature between 200 and 300 degrees Celsius is maintained for 0.5 to 5 seconds. Id. at 7–8 (citing Lauwers). The Examiner also finds that Robertson teaches maintaining a temperature between 250 and 450 degrees C for 0 to 15 seconds and teaches a second annealing process. Id. at 8–9 (citing Robertson). The Examiner provides an evidence-based rationale for combining the teachings of the three references. Id. at 7–9. Appellant argues that a person of skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Lauwers or Roberts with Yin with predictability because Yin teaches annealing at 1000 degrees Celsius for microseconds as opposed to the longer and cooler annealing processes of Lauwers and Robertson. Appeal Br. 12–14. This argument is unpersuasive because, aside from the 1000 degree Celsius laser annealing, Yin also teaches that “[o]ther annealing processes, such as rapid thermal annealing and spike annealing may be applied in other embodiments.” Yin ¶ 40. The Examiner’s rejection is based on other annealing processes (as Yin suggests as a possibility)—and in particular relies on the annealing processes Lauwers and Robertson teach. Ans. 3–5. Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 6 Appellant also argues that the cited references do not teach that a peak temperature between 200 and 300 degrees Celsius is maintained between 0.5 and 5 seconds. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant primarily focuses on Figure 5 of Lauwers and disputes that Lauwers teaches maintaining a peak temperature. Id.; see also Reply Br. 5–8. Even if Appellant is correct about Lauwers, however, Robertson teaches this recitation. Ans. 5; Robertson 3:39–51 (teaching a temperature between 250 and 450 degrees Celsius with a soak anneal time “between 0–15 secs.”). Our reviewing court has repeatedly held that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists where ranges of a claimed composition overlap ranges taught by the prior art. See, e.g., In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here, Robertson’s temperature and time period overlaps with the recitations of claim 1, and, thus, provides an adequate basis for the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant argues that Robertson’s teaching of “a soak anneal time between 0–15 secs” does not disclose claim 1’s recitations because it refers to a soak anneal rather than a spike anneal. Reply Br. 9. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because claim 1 does not recite a spike anneal. Rather, claim 1 recites a range for a peak temperature and recites that the peak temperature “is maintained for a time duration greater than about 0.5 seconds but less than about 5 seconds.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). Whether characterized as a soak anneal or spike anneal, Robertson teaches such a process step. Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify harmful error, we sustain these rejections. Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 7 Rejections C, E (claim 23), and F, obviousness. Appellant separately argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Appeal Br. 14–16. Appellant applies this same argument to claim 23 as its recitations are similar to those of claim 4 and applies this argument to claim 29 which depends from claim 4. Appeal Br. 18–19. Consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013), we focus on claim 4, and claims 23 and 29 stand or fall together with claim 4. Claim 4 recites, “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising before the depositing of the portion of the substrate, the implantation process being performed in a temperature range between about -60 degrees Celsius and about -100 degrees Celsius.” Appeal Br. 23–24 (Claims App.). The Examiner rejects claim 4 as obvious over Yin, Lauwers, Robertson, and Lee. Final Act. 11–12. The Examiner finds that Lee teaches implementation at a temperature between about -60 degrees Celsius and about -100 degrees Celsius. Id. at 11. The Examiner provides a rationale for combining this teaching with the teachings of the other cited references. Id. at 12. Appellant first argues that the rejection of claim 4 should be reversed for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. We, however, sustained the rejection of claim 1 for the reasons we explain above. Appellant also argues that Lee teaches residual damage is minimized by maximizing formation of an amorphous layer and teaches that the amorphous layer is thicker as temperature of the ion implant process decreases. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Lee ¶¶ 10, 42). Appellant’s argument does not persuade us of Examiner error because, while Lee does generally suggest that low temperatures are preferred, Lee also suggests that “ultralow temperatures of -100 to -200º C” are acceptable. Lee ¶ 38; see also id. at Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 8 ¶ 10; Ans. 9. The best reading of Lee is that temperatures of -100 to -200º C are examples of its preferred low temperatures. The overlap between the temperature range taught by Lee and claim 4’s temperature range at -100º C is sufficient to support the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329. Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 23, and 29. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 11, 18 nonstatutory double patenting Application No. 14/209,374, Lauwers 1, 11, 18 1, 6, 9, 10, 28 103 Yin, Lauwers, Robertson 1, 6, 9, 10, 28 4 103 Yin, Lauwers, Robertson, Lee 4 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, 30, 31 103 Yin, Huang, Robertson, Lauwers, Lee 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, 30, 31 18, 23, 32 103 Yin, Robertson, Lauwers, Lee 18, 23, 32 29 103 Yin, Lauwers, Robertson, Lee, Huang 29 33 103 Yin, Robertson, Lauwers, Lee, Huang 33 Overall Outcome 1, 4, 6, 9– 12, 16, 18, 21–23, 28– 33 Appeal 2019-004208 Application 14/308,976 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation