Ex Parte Chen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11360683 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 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.
11/360,683 02/24/2006 Cheng-Ku Chen 0941-1517PUS1 1059
47826 7590 09/26/2012
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
P.O. BOX 747
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22040-0747
EXAMINER
KUO, WENSING W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2826
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 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 CHENG-KU CHEN
____________

Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

Dissenting Opinion filed by BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-10 and 21-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate having a pMOS device region and an
nMOS device region;
a first gate structure overlying said pMOS device region and a second
gate structure overlying said nMOS device region, wherein each of said first
gate structure and said second gate structure comprises a gate electrode
overlying said semiconductor substrate and a source/drain region in said
semiconductor substrate laterally adjacent to said gate electrode;
silicide regions on said gate electrodes and said source/drain regions
of said first gate structure and said second gate structure respectively;
a single conformal amorphous carbon film with a predetermined
tensile stress formed directly on each of said first gate structure, said second
gate structure, and said silicide regions; and
a dielectric layer overlying said conformal amorphous carbon film and
comprising contact holes passing through said dielectric layer and said
conformal amorphous carbon film to expose said silicide regions on said
source/drain regions of said first gate structure and said second gate structure
respectively.

Prior Art
Jin US 6,149,778 Nov. 21, 2000
Hachimine US 2003/0181005 A1 Sept. 25, 2003
Shima US 2006/0186557 A1 Aug. 24, 2006
Chong US 2007/0132038 A1 June 14, 2007

Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-6, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chong, Hachimine, and Jin.
Claims 7-9, 22, 23, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Shima, and Jin.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shima, Jin, and Hachimine.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 21, and 24
Appellant contends that replacing the silicon nitride conformal film of
Chong with the carbon conformal film of Jin would change the principle of
operation of Chong’s conformal film. According to Appellant, the principle
of operation of the conformal film is increasing carrier mobility by
introducing stress. Br. 16-18, 20. The carbon film of Jin introduces a stress
of 100 Mpa (col. 6, ll. 62-63), increasing carrier mobility (see Hachimine
Fig. 2), which satisfies the principle of operation of introducing stress.
Appellant contends that replacing the silicon nitride conformal film of
Chong with the carbon conformal film of Jin would render the conformal
film of Chong unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of introducing stress.
Br. 16-18, 20. However, the carbon film of Jin introduces stress of 100
Mpa, which satisfies the intended purpose of introducing stress.
Appellant contend that using amorphous carbon film as an interlayer
dielectric increases performance by reducing RC delay, but using amorphous
carbon film as a conformal stress liner reduces performance by reducing
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

4
carrier mobility. Appellant concludes that Jin only suggests using
amorphous carbon film as an interlayer dielectric. Br. 18-19.
Appellant’s conclusion is based on the premise that the only
advantage of replacing silicon nitride with amorphous carbon film is
reducing RC delay in the interlayer dielectric. However, the Examiner finds
additional benefits in replacing the silicon nitride film of Chong with the
amorphous carbon film of Jin. The Examiner finds that using the amorphous
carbon film of Jin in place of the silicon nitride film of Chong improves
overall chip performance by providing a low dielectric constant, high
thermal stability, high breakdown field, and low leakage current. Ans. 5-6,
13-14. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut
the Examiner’s finding that replacing the silicon nitride film of Chong with
the amorphous carbon film of Jin improves overall chip performance by
providing a low dielectric constant, high thermal stability, high breakdown
field, and low leakage current.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not explained how the
combination of Chong, Hachimine, and Jin teaches using a known technique
to improve a similar device in the same way. Br. 20-22. The Examiner does
not rely on the rationale of using a known technique to improve a similar
device in the same way. The Examiner’s rationale for replacing the silicon
nitride of Chong with the carbon film of Jin is Jin’s teaching that carbon film
provides the benefits of a low dielectric constant, high thermal stability, high
breakdown field, and low leakage current. Ans. 14-15. Appellant’s
contention does not address the Examiner’s rationale for combining Chong,
Hachimine, and Jin.
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

5
The dissent argues that Jin’s teachings of using amorphous carbon as
a substitute for silicon nitride do not include the ability of amorphous carbon
to serve as a FET or CMOS stress layer. The dissent concludes that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered the amorphous carbon
of Jin as a substitute for the silicon nitride of Chong. The dissent’s argument
is based on the premise that the obviousness inquiry should look only to the
problem the Chong reference was trying to solve, namely, maximizing
carrier mobility. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in
the field and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the
elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 402 (2007). The dissent “err[s] in assuming that a person of ordinary
skill in the art attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those prior
art elements designed to solve the same problem.” Id. The dissent wrongly
concludes that because one purpose of Chong is maximizing carrier
mobility, an artisan considering how to reduce the problems caused by the
high dielectric constant of silicon nitride film would have no reason to
consider using Jin’s amorphous carbon film. However, Jin provides an
obvious example of a known substitute for silicon nitride that addresses
silicon nitride’s high dielectric problem of capacitance between lines and
resulting crosstalk noise. Col. 1, ll. 20-48; col. 2, ll. 13-21; col. 4, ll. 38-32.
The dissent argues that using a stress of 100 MPa would change the
principle of operation of Chong’s device, because the record contains no
evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that the
addition of a low-stress film, which increases a CMOS’s stress only up to
100 MPa, would result in a device performance improvement that is
sufficient to warrant the associated increase in the manufacturing process’s
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

6
time, difficulty, and expense. However, such facts are irrelevant in
determining whether the principle of operation is changed. Further,
Appellants do not allege that substituting amorphous carbon for silicon
nitride is time consuming, difficult, or costly. Appellants allege that using
the stress of 100 MPa of Jin’s film changes Chong’s principle of operation
of increasing carrier mobility. Br. 16. Appellants’ allegation is inconsistent
with the facts shown in Figure 2 of Hachimine, which teaches that a stress of
100 MPa increases carrier mobility.
The dissent cites paragraph 175 of Hachimine to support the premise
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would only use a tensile stress of
between +700 to +800 MPa and a compressive stress of -900 to -1000 Mpa.
However, paragraph 175 of Hachimine merely cites examples of stresses
that provide 10 to 15% improvement in drain current. Paragraph 175of
Hachimine does not discourage or disparage using a lesser amount of stress
to achieve other benefits, such as reducing cross talk. In fact, Figure 2 of
Hachimine teaches wide a range of stresses and corresponding increases in
carrier mobility known to a person of ordinary skill at the time of invention,
including the stress of 100 MPa and the known increase of 1 to 2 percent.
The facts in this record are that the substitution of amorphous carbon
film for silicon nitride film was known, the benefits of using amorphous
carbon film in place of silicon nitride were known, and the amount of
increase in carrier mobility from amorphous carbon film having a stress of
100 MPa was known. Substituting the amorphous carbon film of Jin for the
conformal silicon nitride film of Chong and Hachimine yields “a single
conformal amorphous carbon film with a predetermined tensile stress (of
100 Mpa) formed directly on each of said first gate structure, said second
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

7
gate structure and said silicide regions,” with the predictable results of an
increase in carrier mobility of 1 to 2 percent, a low dielectric constant that
reduces capacitance and cross talk, high thermal stability, high breakdown
field, and low leakage current. “The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l., 550 U.S. at 416.
Finally, the arguments presented by Appellant and the dissent are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite that the
amorphous carbon film is a stress-inducing layer. Claim 1 does not recite
that the claimed semiconductor device is a strain-enhanced device, see Spec.
¶ [0005]. Claim 1 does not recite a range of tensile stresses for the film that
result in a strain-enhanced device. Claim 1 merely recites an amorphous
carbon film with a “predetermined” tensile stress, which encompasses the
low stress film of Jin, or even a film with stress “predetermined” to be zero.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Brief. Arguments Appellant could have made but did not make
in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-6, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 7-9, 22, 23, and 25-27
Appellant contends that the combination of Shima and Jin does not
teach “a first conformal amorphous carbon film with compressive stress
formed directly on said first gate structure” and “a second conformal
amorphous carbon film with tensile stress formed directly on said second
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

8
gate structure” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellant contends that
replacing the conformal silicon nitride film of Shima with a low stress
amorphous conformal film of Jin would render the prior art unsatisfactory
for its intended purpose of introducing stress and would change the principle
of operation of causing in-plane dilation to increase carrier mobility. Br. 23-
24. However, the amorphous carbon film of Jin has a stress of 100 MPa.
Using the carbon film of Jin in the conformal layer of Shima would
introduce stress and increase carrier mobility as discussed in our analysis of
claim 1.
Appellant also contends that the amorphous carbon film taught by Jin
would only be used to replace the dielectric layer of Shima, but would not be
used to replace the silicon nitride conformal layer. Br. 24-26. The
Examiner finds that replacing silicon nitride film with amorphous carbon
film improves chip performance by providing low dielectric constant, high
thermal stability, low stress, high breakdown field, and low leakage current.
Ans. 16-17. Appellant has not provide persuasive evidence or argument to
rebut the Examiner’s finding that using the amorphous carbon film of Jin in
the conformal layer of Shima improves chip performance by providing low
dielectric constant, high thermal stability, low stress, high breakdown field,
and low leakage current.
We sustain the rejection of claims 7-9, 22, 23, and 25-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 10
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 10 (Br. 26), which thus falls with claim 7.
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

9

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-6, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chong, Hachimine, and Jin is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7-9, 22, 23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Shima and Jin is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shima, Jin, and Hachimine is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

gvw
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

10
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge, DISSENTING:
I.
Appellant’s invention is directed to overcoming problems associated
with the known use of silicon nitride (SiN) as a conformal stress or straining
layer on complementary metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors
(CMOS) (e.g., Br. 13-16; Spec. ¶¶ 0001-0005). More specifically,
Appellant’s invention entails substituting for the conventionally used SiN
stress layer, a conformal fluorinated amorphous carbon (a-C:F) layer in such
a manner such that the conformal a-C:F layer serves as either a tensile stress
layer or a compressive stress layer (e.g., Spec. ¶ 0006). Independent claim 1
reflects this inventive feature by reciting, inter alia, “a single conformal
amorphous carbon film with a predetermined tensile stress formed directly
on each of said first gate structure, said second gate structure, and said
silicide regions” (emphasis added).
In formulating the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Chong
for teaching conventional CMOS transistors possessing a SiN stress layer
(Ans. 4-5). The Examiner relies on Hachimine for teaching that the n-type
field effect transistor (NFET) of a CMOS device was advantageously
strained with SiN so as to specifically provide a tensile stress (Ans. 5). The
Examiner then relies on Jin for teaching that a-C:F films were known (id.)
and provides reasons for why one of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would
have been motivated to substitute a conformal layer of a-C:F for the prior
art’s SiN stress layer (Ans. 6). While all of these noted reasons relate to
various beneficial physical properties of a-C:F generally,1 none of the

1 The reasons cited by the Examiner are low dielectric constant, high thermal
stability, low stress, high breakdown field, and low leakage current (Ans. 6).
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

11
Examiner’s reasons include the ability of a-C:F to serve as a FET or CMOS
stress layer (id.).
Appellant accurately points out in the Appeal Brief that Chong’s
conformal SiN layer is placed directly on the gates in order to serve as a
stress liner “to introduce stress to the transistors” (Br. 16). Appellant points
out that “[t]he Jin et al. reference clearly teaches an amorphous carbon film
with low dielectric constant and low stress” (Br. 17). Appellant contends
that “after learning about Jin et al.’s amorphous carbon film with low
dielectric constant and low stress, it is not likely that one skilled in the art
would use Jin et al.’s amorphous carbon film to substitute Chong et al.’s
conformal stress liner” (id.). Instead, Appellant continues, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found that substituting a low stress a-C:F film for
Chong’s SiN stress liner would have rendered the resultant structure
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would have changed Chong’s
principle of operation (Br. 17-18).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Jin indisputably teaches that
the a-C:F layer is intended to be, and is, a low stress film:
(1) The invention provides a device containing a low κ, hydrogen-
free a-C:F layer with good adhesion and thermal stability. It
was found that the combination of desirable properties was
attainable by a relatively easy process, as compared to
processes that utilize gaseous sources, such as CVD.
Specifically, the a-C:F layer is formed by sputter deposition,
using only solid sources for the fluorine and carbon, and in the
absence of any intentionally-added hydrogen-containing source.
The sputtering is performed such that the layer contains 20 to
60 at. % fluorine, and also, advantageously, such that the a-C:F
exhibits a bandgap of about 2.0 eV or greater. The a-C:F layer
formed by the process of the invention exhibits a dielectric
constant, at 1 MHz and room temperature, of 3.0 or less,
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

12
advantageously 2.5 or less, along with being thermally stable up
to at least 350° C., advantageously 450° C., and exhibiting a
stress of about 100 MPa or less, in absolute value.
(Abstract)(Emphasis added).
(2) It is desired that new low κ materials exhibit a variety of
electrical, chemical, mechanical and thermal properties. These
properties include low dielectric constant, high thermal
stability, good adhesion, low stress, good mechanical strength,
matched CTE (coefficient-of-thermal-expansion) with silicon,
etchability and etch selectivity, low moisture absorption, high
thermal conductivity, low leakage current, high breakdown
strength, and manufacturability.
(Col. 2, ll. 14-21)(Emphasis added).
(3) It has also been found that a relatively low stress of about 100
MPa (in absolute value) or less is possible according to the
invention (which improves adhesion, without a buffer layer, to
a variety of substrate materials, including Si, SiO2, TiN and Al).
(The stress is determined by measuring the effect of the
deposited layer on the curvature of a substrate, and is either
compressive or tensile.)
(Col. 4, ll. 9-16)(Emphasis added).
(4) The invention therefore provides an improved process for
preparing a device containing an amorphous fluorinated carbon
layer, where the layer exhibits a variety of properties important
to good device performance, including low dielectric constant,
high thermal stability, low stress, high breakdown field, and
low leakage current.
(Col. 4, ll. 27-32)(Emphasis added).
(5) The above process of the invention is also capable of forming
an a-C:F layer exhibiting a relatively low stress of about 100
MPa or less, in absolute value (as measured by laser scanning
of the wafer curvature before and after formation of the a-C:F
layer, according to conventional techniques). Low stress
improves adhesion, e.g., to substrates such as Si, SiO2, Al, TiN,
and glass, by reducing the tendency of a layer to delaminate
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

13
from such substrates. As the fluorine concentration is
increased, the stress decreases (thereby improving adhesion).
It has been found that particularly low stresses are obtained at
about 40 at. % fluorine or higher in the sputtered layers formed
according to the invention. In addition to fluorine
concentration, adjusting the power to the target or targets will
tend to change the stress state, due to the power's effect on
deposition rate. The thickness of a-C:F layers in a device is
typically in the range of 0.2-1 μm, more typically 0.4-0.7 μm.
(Col. 6, l. 61–col. 7, l. 10)(Emphasis added).
(6) EXAMPLE 1
….
The stress of the deposited layer on Si was measured by a
scanning laser system that detects the change of curvature
induced in the substrate due to the deposited film. The stress
was found to be compressive stress and measured 27 MPa.
(Col. 9, l. 34–col. 10, l. 4)(Emphasis added).
(7) EXAMPLE 2
….
The stress in the layer deposited on Si was found to be
compressive stress at about 5 MPa.
(Col. 10, ll. 15-47).
(8) [Claim] 2. The process of claim 1, wherein the layer exhibits
a stress of about 100 MPa or less, in absolute value.
(Claim 2).
(9) [Claim] 18. The process of claim 17, wherein the annealed
layer exhibits a stress of about 100 MPa or less, in absolute
value.
(Claim 18).
A review of the cited prior art as a whole leads to only one plausible
conclusion: The rejection’s proposed use of Jin’s low-stress a-C:F film as a
substitute for the SiN stress layer of Chong/Hachimine was the result of
impermissible hindsight.
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

14
II.
The Majority affirms the rejection of claim 1 for two reasons (Dec. 3-
5). The first reason relates to the fact that Jin’s a-C:F film produces some
stress. The second reason relates, not to the cited art’s substantive teachings,
but to a procedural matter–a perceived deficiency in the Appeal Brief’s
arguments. These two reasons are addressed individually.
II(a)
The Majority notes that Jin’s a-C:F film may produce a stress of 100
MPa (Dec. 3).2 The Majority also notes that Figure 2 of Hachimine
indicates that a 100 MPa stress on certain transistor gates produces about a
1-2% variation in the transistor’s drain current (id. (citing Hachimine, Fig.
2)). From this, the Majority concludes that Hachimine provides evidence
that a 100 MPa stress, such as is achievable with a-C:F, “satisfies the
principle of operation of introducing stress” (Dec. 3).
Respectfully, this reasoning is flawed. The record contains absolutely
no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a
low-stress layer producing only up to 100 MPa of stress would be
reasonably useful as a stress-inducing layer in a FET or CMOS device. That
is, the record contains no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found that the addition of a low-stress film, which increases a CMOS’s
stress only up to 100 MPa, would result in a device performance

2 Jin discloses that the 100 MPa stress, upon which the majority relies, is the
upper stress boundary and that lower stresses can be achieved by increasing
the fluorine content (col. 6, l. 61–col. 7, l. 10). For example, Examples 1
and 2 of Jin indicate that smaller stresses of 27 MPa and 5 MPa,
respectively, can be achieved (col. 9, l. 34–col. 10, l. 4; col. 10, ll. 15-47).

Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

15
improvement that is sufficient to warrant the associated increase in the
manufacturing process’s time, difficulty, and expense. To the contrary, the
record only provides evidence that conventionally used stress inducing films
produced stresses on the order of +700 to +800 MPa for tensile stresses and
-900 to -1000 MPa for compressive films (see Hachimine,¶ 0175 (discussing
the stresses produced by conventional SiN stress films)). These
conventional ranges of stress are higher than the stress produced by Jin’s
low-stress films by a factor of seven or more.
It is true that the DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE
EMBODIMENTS section of Appellant’s Specification states that “[t]he
amorphous carbon film 30 has a tensile stress of 0 ~ 10 Gpa” (Spec. 0023).
This range converts to 0 ~10,000 MPa, which encompasses Jin’s stress range
of up to 100 MPa. However, no evidence indicates that this passage of
Appellant’s Specification merely constitutes a broad definition of the stress
range that a conventional stress film was known to fall within. That is,
Appellant’s Specification does not evidence that Jin’s a-C:F film, even when
possessing the upper limit of 100 MPa, would have been deemed by one of
ordinary skill to constitute a “conformal amorphous carbon film with a
predetermined tensile stress,” as recited in claim 1.
Rather, this passage constitutes a disclosure of the ranges Appellant
has found to be viable for producing a stress-inducing layer. Accordingly,
any reliance on this portion of Appellant’s Specification for determining
patentability would constitute an impermissible use of Appellant’s
disclosure. Such reliance would also constitute a new ground of rejection, as
Appellant’s Specification was never cited in the Examiner’s rejection. See
In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342, n. 3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

16
relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there
would appear to be no excuse for not positively including that reference in
the statement of the rejection.”).
II(b)
In affirming the rejection of independent claim 1, the Majority also
relies on the fact that the rejection sets forth an alternative motivation for
substituting Jin’s a-C:F for Chong’s SiN that is separate from the stress
film’s primary purpose of increasing stress–to “improve[] overall chip
performance by providing a low dielectric constant, high thermal stability,
high breakdown field, and low leakage current” (e.g., Dec. 4 (citing Ans. 5-
6)). The Majority finds Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or
argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings that these additional reasons
would have provided sufficient motivation for the ordinarily skilled artisan
to make the proposed substitution (Dec. 4). The Majority further notes that
“[it has] only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in
the Brief. Arguments Appellant could have made but did not make in the
Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived” (Dec. 5 citing
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
The Majority is simply incorrect in concluding that Appellant has
failed to address this alternative motivation. For example, Appellant has
argued,
even if Chong et al., Hachimine et al., and Jin et al. were
combined, Jin et al.’s amorphous carbon film with low
dielectric constant and low stress will only be used to substitute
the dielectric layer 16 of Hachimine et al., but not the
conformal stress liner of Chong et al. Thus, the semiconductor
device of Chong et al. as modified by Hachimine et al. with Jin
et al.’s amorphous carbon film will only include a blanketly
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

17
formed amorphous carbon film overlying the conformal stress
liner, which fails to meet the limitation “a single conformal
amorphous carbon film directly on each of said first gate
structure, said second gate structure, and said silicide region” in
independent claim 1.
(Br. 18-19).
Appellant additionally argues that one of ordinary skill would not
substitute the amorphous carbon film for the SiN conformal stress liner in
order to reduce RC delay because Jin’s amorphous carbon film, providing a
low stress, would reduce the devices carrier mobility, thereby reducing the
device’s performance (Br. 19).
To summarize, Appellant adequately argues that the other noted
benefits amorphous carbon may generally provide would not serve as a
sufficient basis to employ the amorphous carbon specifically for use as a
conformal stress liner. This is because Jin’s amorphous carbon performs the
exact opposite function from the primary, if not sole, function of Chong’s
conformal stress liner–to increase stress. In fact, “substituting Chong et al.’s
stress liner with Jin et al.’s low stress amorphous carbon film would render
the intended purpose of the Chong et al. unsatisfactory and to change the
principle of operation of the Chong et al.” (Br. 20).
Appellant’s arguments persuasively rebut the Examiner’s alternative
reasons to combine. At the very least, these arguments address the
alternative reasons sufficiently so as to require that the Board consider this
limited issue de novo. See Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential) (noting that we review the appealed rejections for error
based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments
and evidence produced thereon). A limited de novo review of the issues
Appeal 2010-002834
Application 11/360,683

18
raised by Appellant indicates that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the obviousness rejection
of independent claim 1, which stands rejected over the combination of
Chong, Hachimine, and Jin. I would likewise reverse the rejection of claims
2-6, 21, and 24, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 7 contains similar language, requiring a first
conformal amorphous carbon film with compressive stress and a second
conformal amorphous carbon film with tensile stress. The obviousness
rejection of claim 7 over Shima and Jin relies on a similar substitution of
Jin’s amorphous carbon film for Shima’s conventional SiN stress films
(Ans. 8). For the reasons explained in relation to independent claim 1, I
would likewise reverse the obviousness rejection of independent claim 7, as
well as the obviousness rejection of claims 8, 9, 22, 23, and 25-27, which
depend from claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 7, the Examiner’s
further reliance on Hachimine’s teachings does not cure the deficiencies
noted with respect to claim 7. Accordingly, I would reverse the obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 10 for the reasons set forth above.

BWB