Ex Parte GoswamiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201611800199 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation