Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2021

2020004683 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 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.
15/615,790 06/06/2017 Kelvin Chan 023989USA 5516
67251 7590 06/29/2021
SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT
33 WOOD AVE SOUTH
SUITE 830
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
CHEN, BRET P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2021 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):
docket@dsiplaw.com
hservilla@dsiplaw.com
lmurphy@dsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KELVIN CHAN and YIHONG CHEN

Appeal 2020-004683
Application 15/615,790
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Appellant’s invention is directed to a method of depositing thin films,
in particular tungsten films by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (Spec. ¶ 2).

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004683
Application 15/615,790

2
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A processing method comprising:
positioning a substrate with a surface in a processing chamber;
forming a nucleation layer on the surface of the substrate by a
deposition process comprising sequentially exposing the substrate surface to
a first reactive gas and a second reactive gas, the first reactive gas
comprising a metal precursor and the second reactive gas comprising a
halogenated silane, and the nucleation layer having a growth rate in the
range of about 0.1 to about 10 Å/cycle; and
performing a bulk metal deposition on the nucleation layer.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1–5, 7–10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Li (US 2006/0024959 A1, pub. Feb. 2, 2006)
in view of Sneh (US 2003/01900424 A1, pub. Oct. 9, 2003) and
Lee (US 2009/0081866 A1, pub. March 26, 2009).
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Li in view of Sneh, Lee and Nam (US 2008/0042173 A1,
pub. Feb. 21, 2008).
3. Claims 11–13 and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Li in view of Sneh, Lee, and Kang (US
2014/0061784 A1, pub. March 6, 2014).
4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Li in view of Sneh, Lee, Kang and Lei (US
2015/0194298 A1, pub. July 9, 2015).

FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
REJECTION (1)
Appeal 2020-004683
Application 15/615,790

3
The Examiner’s findings and conclusions regarding the §103 rejection
over Li, Sneh, and Lee are located on pages 2 to 3 of the Final Action.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “forming a nucleation layer on the surface
of the substrate by a deposition process comprising sequentially exposing
the substrate surface to a first reactive gas and a second reactive gas . . . the
nucleation layer having a growth rate in the range of about 0.1 to about 10
[Angstroms]/cycle.” Claim 15 is nearly identical to the language used in
claim 1. Claim 20 recites, inter alia, “a processing chamber comprising a
plurality of process regions, each process region separated from adjacent
process regions by a gas curtain; exposing . . . the substrate surface to a first
process condition in a first process region of the processing chamber . . .;
laterally moving the substrate surface through a gas curtain to a second
process region of the processing chamber; exposing the substrate surface to a
second process condition in the second process region . . .; repeating
exposure to the first process condition and the second process condition to
form a nucleation layer . . . at a growth rate of 1 [Angstroms]/cycle to about
10 [Angstroms]/cycle. . ..”
The Specification defines “sequential” as exposure such that “the
reactive gases are exposed to the substrate surface one after another. In a
sequential exposure, there is little or no gas phase mixing of the reactive
gases.” (Spec. ¶ 43). The Specification defines “gas curtain” as “any
combination of gas flows or vacuum that separate reactive gases from
mixing.” (Id. at ¶ 32).
Based upon these definitions of “sequential” and “gas curtain,” we
interpret claims 1 and 20 as limited to an atomic layer deposition process
Appeal 2020-004683
Application 15/615,790

4
(ALD). That is, a sequential process where there is little or no mixing of
reactive gases between depositions of the first and second reactive gas.
Appellant argues the recited growth rate (i.e., 0.1 to about 10
Angstroms/cycle) is not taught or suggested by the combination of Li, Sneh,
and Lee (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant contends that Lee’s example 1 relied
upon by the Examiner uses a pulsed-Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD)
process not an ALD process (i.e., sequentially applied reactive gases without
gas phase mixing of the reactive gases) (Appeal Br. 16; Reply Brief 2).
Appellant argues Lee’s example 1 uses a continuous flow of silicon
precursor gas instead of the sequential exposure to a first and a second
reactive gas as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant contends that
Lee’s continuous application of silicon precursor gas is not considered
sequential application of reactive gases as defined in the Specification
because Lee’s gases would mix in the gas phase during deposition (Appeal
Br. 17). Appellant contends Lee’s disclosure to deposit using a continuous
flow of silicon precursor gas with intermittent application of tungsten
fluoride is not an ALD process (Appeal Br. 16). Appellant argues the
Examiner has not established a reasonable expectation of success that the
combined teachings of Li and Lee would have suggested the growth rate
recited in claims 1, 15, and 20 (Appeal Br. 18). Appellant argues the
Examiner failed to provide any evidence to support the conclusion that the
growth rate disclosed in Lee for pulsed-CVD is relevant to the process of Li
(Appeal Br. 18).
The Examiner responds that a person skilled in the art would realize
that ALD and CVD are different processes but that many of the same
characteristics are shared including deposition rates (Ans. 8). The Examiner,
Appeal 2020-004683
Application 15/615,790

5
however, does not direct us to any evidence to support the finding that ALD
and CVD share the same deposition rates.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992. The
Examiner does not specifically dispute Appellant’s argument that the
deposition rate in Lee’s Example 1 referred to by the Examiner is a pulsed-
CVD process (Ans. 7–8). Rather, the Examiner finds that CVD and ALD
are similar processes and Sneh teaches ALD is a variant of CVD (Ans. 7).
The Examiner finds that Sneh recognizes that deposition rates affect the
stoichiometry, conformality and purity of the films (Ans. 7). The Examiner
finds Lee teaches using CVD, pulsed-CVD, and ALD (Ans. 8). Indeed,
Lee’s example 1 includes a pulsed-CVD process that recites a deposition
rate of approximately 7 Angstroms/cycle and an ALD process where no
deposition rate is given (Lee, ¶¶ 70-85). The Examiner provides no
evidence that there would have been a reasonable expectation of
successfully using the growth rate in Lee’s CVD process to form a
nucleation layer using ALD as recited in claims 1, 15, and 20.
Because the Examiner has not satisfied the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, we reverse the Examiner’s §
103 rejection of claims 1–5, 7–10, and 14 over Li, Sneh, and Lee. For the
same reasons we reverse the following § 103 rejections: Claim 6 over Li,
Sneh, Lee, and Nam; Claims 11–13, 15–19 over Li, Sneh, Lee, Kang; and
Claim 20 over Li, Sneh, Lee, Kang, and Lei.

DECISION
In summary:
Appeal 2020-004683
Application 15/615,790

6

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 7–10,
14
103 Li, Sneh, Lee 1–5, 7–
10, 14
6 103 Li, Sneh, Lee, Nam 6
11–13, 15–
19
103 Li, Sneh, Lee,
Kang
11–13,
15–19
20 103 Li, Sneh, Lee,
Kang, Lei
20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED