APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 1, 2021

2020004308 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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. 15/606,456 05/26/2017 Wenguang Li 024883USA 5793 150369 7590 06/01/2021 Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt/AMAT 1211 SW Fifth Ave. Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97204 EXAMINER CHANG, JAY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2895 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2021 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): IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com ghoover@schwabe.com mscardina@schwabe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WENGUANG LI, JAMES S. PAPANU, WEI-SHENG LEI, PRABHAT KUMAR, BRAD EATON, AJAY KUMAR, and ALEXANDER N. LERNER Appeal 2020-004308 Application 15/606,456 Technology Center 2800 Before BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and GEORGE C. BEST, 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 1–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004308 Application 15/606,456 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is set forth below: 1. A method of dicing a semiconductor wafer comprising a plurality of integrated circuits, the method comprising: forming a mask above the semiconductor wafer, the mask comprising a transparent water-soluble matrix based on a solid component and water, and the mask comprising a light-absorber species throughout the transparent water-soluble matrix; patterning the mask and a portion of the semiconductor wafer with a laser scribing process to provide a patterned mask with gaps and corresponding trenches in the semiconductor wafer in regions between the integrated circuits, wherein patterning the mask with the laser scribing process comprises patterning with a laser beam, wherein the light-absorber species of the mask confines a first portion of the laser beam to the mask during the patterning, and wherein a second portion of the laser beam is confined to the semiconductor wafer during the patterning; and plasma etching the semiconductor wafer through the gaps in the patterned mask to extend the trenches and to singulate the integrated circuits, wherein the patterned mask protects the integrated circuits during the plasma etching. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Inada US 4,990,417 Feb. 5, 1991 Kita US 2001/0003643 A1 June 14, 2001 Lei (“Lei ’401”) US 2014/0273401 A1 Sept. 18, 2014 Lei (“Lei ’283”) US 2016/0365283 A1 Dec. 15, 2016 THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) over Lei ’401 as evidenced by Inada. Appeal 2020-004308 Application 15/606,456 3 2. Claims 5–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lei ’401. 3. Claims 2–4 and 13–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combination of Lei ’401 and Kita. 4. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the combination of Lei ’401 and Lei ’283. OPINION Rejection 1 We refer to the Examiner’s statement of the rejection made on pages at 3–5 of the Final Office Action. Therein, the Examiner’s position, inter alia, is Lei ’401’s mask 402A anticipates Appellant’s claimed mask “comprising a transparent water-soluble matrix based on a solid component and water, and the mask comprising a light-absorber species throughout the transparent water-soluble matrix”. The Examiner refers to Inada for evidencing that SbQ-PVA has optical transparency and, therefore, because Lei ’401’s paragraph 39 discloses that SbQ-PVA can be used as the polymer material, Lei ’401’s mask 402A inherently comprises a transparent matrix as claimed. Final Act. 3–5. We agree with Appellant, however, that Lei ’401 discloses that mask 402A is a laser energy absorbing water-soluble polymer. Lei ’401, ¶ 29. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant states that Lei ’401 discloses the polymer materials of the water-soluble matrix are absorbing in both UV and optical (green) bands, and as such, are UV- and visible-absorbing water soluble materials. Lei ’401, ¶ 29. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant points out that Lei ’401 distinguishes the above described laser energy absorbing water-soluble polymers from highly transparent polymers which are highly transparent in Appeal 2020-004308 Application 15/606,456 4 the 350nm–800nm range. Lei ’401, ¶ 30. Appeal Br. 8. The point being that mask 402A is distinguished from materials having highly transparent polymers. Appellant also refers to Lei ’401’s paragraph 39, which discloses that fully cured SbQ-PVA has properties different from partially cured SbQ- PVA, and submits that Inada’s teachings do not necessarily support the Examiner’s position that Inada evidences that Lei ’401’s mask 402A inherently comprises a transparent matrix. Appellant additionally points out that Lei ’401’s mask 402A includes ingredients such as iron or other metal particles in the UV-and visible-absorbing water soluble materials. Lei ’401, ¶ 40. Appeal Br. 8. By contrast, Appellant states that Appellant’s claim 1 recites a mask including a transparent water-soluble matrix and light- absorber species throughout the transparent water-soluble matrix. Id. We are persuaded by the aforementioned arguments. The facts that Lei ’401 distinguishes mask 402A from materials that are highly transparent, and the fact that SbQ-PVA polymers can have different properties, and that Lei ’401’s mask 402A includes additional ingredients, undermine the Examiner’s inherency position. An inherent characteristic must be inevitable and not merely a possibility or probability. See In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). In view of the above, we reverse Rejection 1. We reverse Rejections 2–4 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision. Appeal 2020-004308 Application 15/606,456 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 102 Lei ’401, Inada 1, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17 5–8 103 Lei ’401 5–8 2–4, 13–15 103 Lei ’401, Kita 2–4, 13–15 11 103 Lei ’401, Lei ’283 11 Overall Outcome 1–17 REVERSED