Ex Parte Carey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2012

11459856 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/459,856 07/25/2006 Paul CAREY 005635 USA 03 FEP/OXD 1066
44257 7590 11/30/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
WIECZOREK, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte Applied Materials, Inc.
(Inventors: Paul Carey, Aaron Muir Hunter, Dean Jennings, Abhilash J. Mayur,
Stephen Moffatt, William Schaffer, Timothy N. Thomas, and Mark Yam).
____________________

Appeal 2011-007380
Application 11/459,856
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, PETER F. KRATZ and
HUBERT C. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHAFER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007380
Application 11/459,856

2

Applied Materials, Inc. (Applicant) appeals from an Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1-7 and 10. 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). We affirm.
The Claimed Subject Matter
The invention relates to a method for manufacturing integrated circuits on a
semiconductor substrate such as silicon. The substrate includes scribe lines that
delineate the regions in which each integrated circuit die will be formed. The
method applies multiple pulses from an energy beam to each region. The timing
between the pulses is such that some material in each region melts. The regions
are illuminated sequentially. The pulses applied to each region are constrained so
that any overlap or duplication in illumination between adjacent regions occurs
substantially within the area of the scribe lines.
Claims 1 is representative:
A method of thermally processing a substrate, comprising:
positioning a substrate on a substrate support;
delivering a plurality of electromagnetic energy pulses to
a first area on a surface of a substrate that is in thermal
communication with a first region of the substrate, wherein
delivering a plurality of electromagnetic energy pulses
comprises:
delivering a first pulse of electromagnetic energy to the
surface of the substrate;
delivering a second pulse of electromagnetic energy to
the surface of the substrate; and
adjusting the time between the start of the first pulse and
the start of the second pulse so that the material contained in the
first region melts; and
delivering a plurality of electromagnetic energy pulses to
a second area on the surface of the substrate that is in thermal
communication with a second region of the substrate, the
second area adjacent to the first area, and the delivering a
plurality of electromagnetic energy pulses comprising:
delivering a third pulse of electromagnetic energy to the
surface of the substrate;
Appeal 2011-007380
Application 11/459,856

3

delivering a fourth pulse of electromagnetic energy to the
surface of the substrate; and
adjusting the time between the start of the third pulse and
the start of the fourth pulse so that the material contained in the
second region melts,
wherein the first area and the second area are bounded by
one or more scribe lines formed on the surface of the substrate,
and the first pulse and the second pulse overlap with the third
pulse and the fourth pulse in an area consisting essentially of
the one or more scribe lines.
Brief, 17-18 (Claims Appendix).
Rejections
In the Answer, the Examiner maintained two rejections:
1. Claims 1-4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings
of Wickboldt,1 Yamazaki2 and Ebbing3; and
2. Claims 5, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings
of Wickboldt, Yamazaki, Ebbing and Mayur4.
Analysis
Claims 1-4 and 10
The Examiner rejected Claims 1-4 and 10 over the combined teachings of
Wickboldt, Yamazaki and Ebbing.
Applicant argues that
Wickboldt et al. is silent regarding a first area and a second area
bounded by one or more scribe lines formed on a surface of a
substrate, and delivering a first amount and a second amount of
electromagnetic energy in one or more pulses that overlap with

1 U.S. Patent 5,918,140.
2 U.S. Patent 5,541,138.
3 U.S. Patent 4,953,982.
4 U.S. Patent Publication 2003/0040130.
Appeal 2011-007380
Application 11/459,856

4

a third amount and a fourth amount of electromagnetic energy
delivered in one or more pulses in an area consisting essentially
of the one or more scribe lines.
Brief, 10. Applicant then addresses the Yamazaki reference, arguing that it
“is silent regarding a first area and a second area bounded by
one or more scribe lines formed on a surface of a substrate, and
delivering a first amount and a second amount of
electromagnetic energy in one or more pulses that overlap with
a third amount and a fourth amount of electromagnetic energy
delivered in one or more pulses in an area consisting essentially
of the one or more scribe lines.”
Brief, 10.
We find that Applicant’s assertions about Yamazaki’s lack of disclosure are
contrary to the references express
teachings. Yamazaki teaches a gas
immersion laser doping (GILD)
process. Yamazaki, 2:40-47.
Yamazaki’s Figure 7, reproduced
right, shows a wafer divided into 32
sections (numbered 1 to 32). We find
that one having ordinary skill in the
art would have interpreted the lines
demarcating each numbered section on the wafer as the conventional scribe lines
used in making multiple integrated circuit dies on a single silicon wafer.5 See

5 We recognize that the Examiner found that Yamazaki does not “teach that the
boundary of the first area and the second area are aligned with one or more scribe
lines formed on the substrate surface.” Answer, 6. We view that finding as a
harmless error. Since we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious to use conventional scribe lines to separate the regions to be
irradiated, the error would not have changed the outcome of this appeal.
Appeal 2011-007380
Application 11/459,856

5

Ebbing, 1:7-24 and Brief, 12, last full paragraph (noting that the use of scribe lines
is conventional). Thus, Yamazaki’s Figure 7 discloses a first area and second area
(of 32 areas) bounded by scribe lines. With further reference to Figure 7,
Yamazaki teaches that the pulsed laser beam may have a square cross section and
irradiates each of separate sections sequentially. Yamazaki, 7:43-48. A pulsed
laser irradiates each section of the substrate with up to 10 pulses and then is moved
to the next section. Yamazaki, 5:52-57. As shown in Figure 7, the laser light
illuminates the entire section including the scribe lines. Also compare Yamazaki’s
Figure 7 with Applicant’s Figure 1. Thus, the pulses of laser light illuminating
each section would overlap along the scribe line as the laser sequentially
illuminates each section. Thus, Yamazaki teaches “delivering a first amount and a
second amount of electromagnetic energy in one or more pulses that overlap with a
third amount and a fourth amount of electromagnetic energy delivered in one or
more pulses in an area consisting essentially of the one or more scribe lines” as
required by the claims.
The reason for combining Wickboldt’s and Yamazaki’s teachings is
expressly taught in the former reference. Wickboldt teaches that the disclosed
pulsed laser melting technique is an enhancement for GILD processes. Wickboldt,
1:35-37. Wickboldt’s melting technique is said to enhance prior GILD processes
by significantly increasing the amount of dopant per laser pulse incorporated into
the substrate. Wickboldt, 1:37-41. According to Wickboldt, this results in an
improvement in the throughput of the doping process. Wickboldt, 2:54-58. It
would have been obvious, therefore, to employ Wickboldt’s laser melting
technique in conjunction with Yamazaki’s GILD process.
Appeal 2011-007380
Application 11/459,856

6

Applicant has not addressed separate arguments to the subject matter added
by Claims 2-4 and 10. The rejection of those claims is affirmed along with
Claim 1. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting Claims 1-4 and 10 over the
combined teaching of Wickboldt, Yamazaki and Ebbing.
Claims 5-7
With respect to Claims 5-7 the Examiner added Mayur’s teaching to the
combined teachings of Wickboldt, Yamazaki and Ebbing. Answer, 8-10.
Applicant argues that Mayur does not cure the deficiencies of the combined
teachings of the other three references. Brief, 15. As explained above, Applicant
has not convinced us that the rejection based upon Wickboldt, Yamazaki and
Ebbing includes any deficiencies.
Applicant also argues that Mayur
is silent regarding a first area and a second area bounded by one
or more scribe lines formed on a surface of a substrate, and
delivering a first pulse and a second pulse that overlap with a
third pulse and a fourth pulse in an area consisting essentially of
the one or more scribe lines.”
Brief, 15.
The Examiner did not rely on Mayur to teach these features. Indeed, we
held above that Yamazaki teaches them. Since applicant has not challenged either
the Examiner’s factual findings relating Mayur’s relevant teachings or the
conclusions drawn relying on those teachings combined with the teachings of the
other references, we affirm the rejection of Claims 5-7.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting Claims 5-7 over the combined
teaching of Wickboldt, Yamazaki, Ebbing and Mayur.
Appeal 2011-007380
Application 11/459,856

7

Other arguments
We have considered applicant’s remaining arguments and find none that
warrant reversal of the Examiner’s rejections. Cf. Loughlin v. Ling, 684 F.3d 1289,
1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decisions rejecting Claims 1-7 and 10 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tc