APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 3, 2021

2020003004 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 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.
14/599,831 01/19/2015 ALAN A. RITCHIE 20784USA 3377
55649 7590 05/03/2021
Moser Taboada / Applied Materials, Inc.
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
EXAMINER
BAND, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2021 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):
ataboada@mtiplaw.com
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALAN A. RITCHIE, ZHENBIN GE, JENN YUE WANG, and
SALLY LOU
Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831
Technology Center 1700

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, 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 7–19. 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. Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party
in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed August 16, 2019, at 3.
Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to methods of depositing a material in features
of a substrate disposed in a processing chamber by sputtering a target using a
plasma formed from a first gas, and etching the deposited material in the
process chamber using a plasma formed by a second gas, different from the
first gas, to partially reduce overhang of material in the feature. Specification
(“Spec.”) filed January 19, 2015, ¶¶ 6–7.2 In some embodiments, the atomic
mass of the second gas is greater than the atomic mass of the first gas. Id.
¶ 6. In addition, the first gas may have a mass ratio to the deposited material
of less than or equal to 1:1, and the second gas may have an atomic mass
ratio to the deposited material of greater than 1:1. Id. ¶ 7.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for depositing a material in a feature of a
substrate, comprising:
depositing the material in the feature of the substrate
disposed in a process chamber by sputtering a target using a
plasma formed from a first gas; and
etching the deposited material in the process chamber
using a plasma formed from a second gas, different than the
first gas, to at least partially reduce overhang of the material in
the feature, wherein an atomic mass of the second gas is greater
than an atomic mass of the first gas, and wherein an atomic
mass ratio of the second gas to the deposited material is greater
than 1:1.

2 This Decision also cites to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated
October 5, 2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated January 13, 2020,
and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 12, 2020.
Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831

3
Independent claim 9 recites a method for depositing a compound
material in a feature of a substrate similar to that of claim 1, wherein the first
gas may have a mass ratio to the deposited material of less than or equal to
1:1, and the second gas may have an atomic mass ratio to the deposited
material of greater than 1:1.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Ishibashi US 6,365,009 B1 Apr. 2, 2002
Ding et al. (“Ding197”) US 6,605,197 B1 Aug. 12, 2003
Rozbicki et al.
(“Rozbicki”)
US 8,298,936 B1 Oct. 30, 2012
Robison et al.
(“Robison”)
US 2004/0188239 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Ding et al. (“Ding151”) US 2006/0030151 A1 Feb. 9, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant requests our review of, the
following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
1. Claims 1–5 and 9–13 as unpatentable over Rozbicki in view
of Ding151;
2. Claims 7, 8, 14, 18, and 19 as unpatentable over Rozbicki in
view of Ding151, and further in view of Robison;
3. Claim 15 as unpatentable over Rozbicki in view of Ding151,
and further in view of Ishibashi; and
4. Claims 16 and 17 as unpatentable over Rozbicki in view of
Ding151, and further in view of Ding197.
Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831

4
OPINION
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The Examiner finds that Rozbicki discloses a method of depositing a
metal layer into a feature of a substrate, the method comprising deposition of
the metal layer by sputtering the metal in a process chamber using a plasma
formed from a gas selected from inert gases (Ne, Kr, Ar, Xe), and
redistribution of the metal layer to reduce overhang in the feature by
resputtering with etching in the process chamber using plasma formed from
another gas selected from the inert gases (Ne, Kr, Ar, Xe). Final Act. 2. The
Examiner acknowledges that Rozbicki fails to suggest selecting the second
gas having an atomic mass greater than an atomic mass of the first gas. Id.
However, the Examiner finds that Ding151 teaches sputter depositing
a material in a feature of a substrate followed by etching, wherein the
deposition uses a first inert gas and the etching uses a second gas of one or
more inert gases to at least partially reduce an overhang, and the deposited
material is at least one of Cu, Ta, Al, or Ti. Id. at 3. The Examiner also finds
that Ding151’s second gas has an atomic mass greater than an atomic mass
Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831

5
of the first gas for selective etching with uniformizing, reducing overhangs,
and improving sidewall uniformity and smoothness. Id. Therefore, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to select first and
second gases in Rozbicki’s method such that the second gas has a greater
atomic mass than the first gas in order to provide selective etching with
uniformizing, reduced overhangs, and improved sidewall uniformity and
smoothness. Id. The Examiner determines that the combination of Rozbicki
and Ding151 teaches that the metal layer is Cu etched with a second gas of
at least Ar, He, and Ne, wherein Cu has an atomic mass of 63.55 and Ar, He,
and Ne have a combined atomic mass of 64.128, such that the atomic mass
ratio of the second gas to the deposited material is greater than 1:1. Id. at 3–
4.
Appellant argues that Rozbicki does not teach or suggest use of a
different gas for the deposition and etching steps, but teaches that the same
gas, Ar, is typically used for both steps. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant contends
that Rozbicki does not teach any importance or benefit of using any
particular inert gas for either step, nor any relationship between the gases
used in each step. Id. Appellant further argues that Ding151 teaches that
high selectivity is desired for an etchant gas in order to reduce overhang
without etching other surfaces of the substrate, and provides that the atomic
mass of the second gas must be less than the atomic mass of the deposited
material. Id. at 6–7. Appellant contends that the Examiner’s determination
that the atomic mass of Ding151’s two or more combination of gases is
64.128 is in error because the atomic mass is based on the mass of an atom
of an element, and asserts that the atomic mass of a combined gas of Ar, He,
and Ne would be based on the atomic mass of Ar. Id. at 8–9.
Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831

6
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of reversible error. Although the
Examiner acknowledges that Rozbicki fails to suggest selecting the second
gas having an atomic mass greater than an atomic mass of the first gas, the
Examiner nonetheless determines that
merely selecting various inert gases of Ar, Ne, Kr, and Xe that
are known to be functionally similar and usable in different
steps of deposition and etching (as taught by Rozbicki . . . )
would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to attain
predictable results of depositing material and then etching the
deposited material to reduce/reshape the overhang.
Ans. 4. The Examiner does not appear to rely on Ding151’s teachings in this
determination, contrary to the rejection statement. However, as Appellant
contends, Rozbicki fails to teach or suggest that the first and second gases
must be different or that the second gas must have an atomic mass greater
than that of the first gas and the deposited material. Nor does the Examiner
provide any reasoning or logical inference based on Rozbicki’s teaching for
determining that an ordinary artisan would have found such selections to
have been obvious.
Further, as Appellant argues, Ding151 specifically teaches that the
atomic mass of the second gas must be less than the atomic mass of the
deposited material—opposite of what claims 1 and 9 require. Appeal Br. 6–
7; Ding151 ¶ 12. We also agree that the Examiner erred in determining that
the atomic mass of Ding151’s combined He, Ne, and Ar gases equals the
sum of the atomic mass of each individual gas. An atomic mass of a mixture
of inert gases cannot have a value greater than the largest atomic mass of
any one inert gas. We, therefore, find no support for the Examiner’s finding
that Ding151’s second gas has an atomic mass greater than an atomic mass
of the first gas and the deposited material. Absent such, the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831

7
conclusion that the methods of claims 1 and 9 would have been obvious
lacks sufficient rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.”), quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner does not rely on Robison, Ishibashi,
and Ding197 to remedy the deficiencies identified above in the combination
of Rozbicki and Ding151. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 9, and claims 2–5, 7, 8, and 10–19,
which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims
1–5 and 7–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

Appeal 2020-003004
Application 14/599,831

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 9–13 103 Rozbicki, Ding151 1–5, 9–13
7, 8, 14, 18,
19
103 Rozbicki,
Ding151, Robison
7, 8, 14, 18,
19
15 103 Rozbicki,
Ding151, Ishibashi
15
16, 17 103 Rozbicki,
Ding151, Ding197
16, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 7–19

REVERSED