Ex Parte Goswami

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

11800199 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

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.
11/800,199 05/04/2007 Jaydeb Goswami 1001.0090001[06-124200US] 8039
59752 7590 12/27/2016
BROOKS, CAMERON & HUEBSCH , PLLC
1201 MARQUETTE AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 400
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
EXAMINER
GRAYBILL, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/27/2016 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):
Micron .Docketing @ bipl. net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAYDEB GOSWAMI
Appeal 2015-007296
Application 11/800,1991
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1—6, 9-11, and 33—39 in the above-
identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Micron Technology, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3, Jan 19, 2015.
2 Office Action, July 9, 2014 [hereinafter Final Action],
Appeal 2015-007296
Application 11/800,199
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention relates to “memory devices with tungsten
digitlines.” Spec. 11. Independent claim 1 is representative of the claims
on appeal:
1. A method for forming a bitline in a memory cell,
comprising:
forming a first tungsten (W) layer having a thickness not
o
greater than 10 angstroms (A) on a tungsten nitride (WNX)
substrate;
forming a boron (B) layer having a thickness not greater
o
than 10 A on the first W layer; and
forming a second W layer having a thickness greater than
o
10 A that contacts the B layer using a chemical vapor
deposition (CVD) process that includes hydrogen (H2)
reduction of tungsten hexafluoride (WF6).
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis added). Independent claims 33 and 38 are similar
to claim 1, but claim 33 requires that each layer is deposited at a given
temperature range, and claim 38 omits the size limitations for the three
layers. See id. at 14—15.
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1—4, 6, 9-11, and 33—39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Lana Hiului Chan et al., U.S. Patent
Application Pub. No. US 2008/0124926 Al (published May 29, 2008)
[hereinafter Chan], Final Action 2—7.
II. Claims 1—6, 9-11, and 33—39, are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chan. Final Action 8—15.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents arguments regarding
independent claims 1, 33, and 38, and makes no additional substantive
argument regarding the dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 10-11. Therefore,
2
Appeal 2015-007296
Application 11/800,199
we limit our discussion to claims 1, 33, and 38. With regard to both
rejections, dependent claims 2—6 and 9-11 stand or fall with claim 1,
dependent claims 34—37 stand or fall with claim 33, and dependent claim 39
stands or falls with claim 38.
DISCUSSION
Chan is directed to “methods for preparing tungsten films.” Chan 12.
In one embodiment, a tungsten film is deposited by
(a) positioning the substrate in a reaction chamber, (b) exposing
the substrate to a non-boron-containing reducing agent, (c) ex­
posing the substrate to a tungsten-containing precursor to form a
portion of a tungsten nucleation layer, (d) exposing the substrate
to a boron-containing species to form a boron-containing layer
on the substrate, (e) contacting the boron-containing layer with a
tungsten-containing precursor to form a portion of the tungsten
nucleation layer and (f) depositing a bulk tungsten layer over the
tungsten nucleation layer to form the tungsten film.
Id. 17; see also id. Fig. 1. More specifically, in step (e), “the boron-
containing layer is contacted with a tungsten-containing precursor,” and is
“exposed until the boron-containing layer is sufficiently consumed by
reaction with the tungsten-containing precursor.” Id. 145. The tungsten-
boron-tungsten layers, according to Chan, together form a “tungsten
nucleation layer.” Id. 145.
The Examiner interprets the claim phrase “boron layer” to mean “a
layer that contains boron, but does not have to be pure Boron. Any layer that
is partially made of Boron can be said to be a Boron layer.” Answer 21. In
light of this construction, the Examiner finds that Chan discloses a method
comprising all the limitations of claims 1, 33, and 38. See Final Action 2—7;
Answer 20—21. This includes the steps of forming the first tungsten, boron,
3
Appeal 2015-007296
Application 11/800,199
and second tungsten layers of claims 1, 33, and 38, where the second
tungsten layer “contacts (at least thermally, electrically and indirectly
physically contacts) the B layer.” Final Action 3; see also id. at 5—6.
Appellant argues that Chan does not teach or suggest forming a
second tungsten layer that “contacts” the boron layer. See Appeal Br. 8.
According to Appellant, “the bulk tungsten layer in Chan is formed over a
tungsten portion of the tungsten nucleation layer, where the tungsten
nucleation layer includes a number of tungsten-boron-tungsten layers.” Id.
Appellant argues that the boron layer is consumed in the process of
depositing the tungsten layer above it, and that “the tungsten nucleation
layer would comprise some form of a tungsten-boron compound. As such,
in Chan there is not a boron layer in contact with the bulk tungsten layer.”
Id. (citing Chan || 45, 47).
We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. In re Translogic Tech. Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256
(Fed. Cir. 2007). The phrases “boron (B) layer” in claims 1 and 33 and the
phrase “boron (B)” in claim 38 are not explicitly defined in the
Specification. In one embodiment, the boron layer is a monolayer. See
Spec. 131. However, claims 1, 33, and 38 have been amended during
prosecution to delete the original requirement that the boron layer is a
monolayer. See Amendment 2, 5—6, Oct. 15, 2010. Thus, the boron layer of
claims 1,33, and 38 may include multiple atomic layers. Appellant has not
directed us to any passage in the Specification, or any other persuasive
evidence, showing that the phrase “boron layer” should be interpreted to
consist of pure boron, or precluding any admixture of elements, for example,
near the boundary between the boron layer and the second tungsten layer.
4
Appeal 2015-007296
Application 11/800,199
Appellant argues that claims 33 and 38, at least, should be interpreted
as requiring a tungsten-free boron layer because “the boron layer which is
formed ‘by thermal decomposition of diborane (B2H6), ’ as recited in
Appellant’s independent claims 33 and 38, would not result in a layer that
contains tungsten.” Reply Br. 6—7. However, Chan also discloses that
diborane may be used as a boron precursor for depositing the boron layer in
step (d). See Chan || 42-43. Claims 33 and 38 do not preclude the
possibility, as Appellant argues is occurring in Chan, that the boron layer
reacts with a tungsten precursor after its deposition to form a tungsten-boron
compound.
Therefore, consistent with the Specification and based on the ordinary
meaning of the claim terms, we conclude that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the phrases “boron (B) layer” in claims 1 and 33, and
“boron (B)” in claim 38, is a layer comprising boron, but not necessarily
consisting solely of boron.
In light of this interpretation, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade
us that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 1, 33, or 38. Chan
discloses depositing tungsten over a boron layer in step (e), and then
continuing to deposit tungsten, using CVD, to form a bulk layer in step (f).
See Chan 16. Thus, a second tungsten layer is formed in contact with a
boron layer. Even if the reaction in step (e) results in a tungsten-boron
compound, the layer still comprises boron and is a boron layer. Thus, Chan
discloses a “second W layer” that “contacts the B layer” or “contacts the B”
according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, 33, and 38.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant raises new arguments regarding the layer
thickness limitations of claims 1 and 33, and the temperature limitations of
5
Appeal 2015-007296
Application 11/800,199
claim 33. See Reply Br. 6—7. We do not consider these arguments for the
purpose of this appeal, because they were not raised in the Appeal Brief,
they are not responsive to a matter raised in the Examiner’s Answer, and
Appellant has not shown good cause for us to consider them. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2016).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1, 33, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For
the same reasons, we also affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject dependent
claims 2—6, 9-11, 34—37, and 39.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
6