Ex Parte Hyndman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

13397779 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/397,779 02/16/2012
20987 7590 11/01/2016
VOLENTINE & WHITT PLLC
ONE FREEDOM SQUARE
11951 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 1300
RESTON, VA 20190
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
RHONDA HYNDMAN
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
WLJ.188 6711
EXAMINER
ABRAHAM, IBRAHIME A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
cjohnson@volentine.com
aloomis@volentine.com
iplaw@volentine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RHONDA HYNDMAN and STEPHEN BURGESS
Appeal2015-002127
Application 13/397,779
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JULIA HEANEY, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SNAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-19.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 We cite to the Specification ("Spec.") filed Feb. 16, 2012; Final Office
Action ("Final Act.") mailed Jan. 28, 2014; Examiner's Answer ("Ans.");
and Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.").
2 Appellants identify SPTS Technologies Limited as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
3 We adopt the Examiner's informal renumbering of Appellants' second-
listed claim number 18 as claim 19. See Final Act. 2-3.
Appeal2015-002127
Application 13/397,779
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal concerns deposition of aluminum layers
or films on a substrate. Spec. i-f 1. According to Appellants, substrates such
as wafers are "subject to considerable warpage or bowing when under the
stress induced by the various deposited layers." Spec. i-f 3. While stress can
be reduced "by sputtering the film at low temperature with the wafer
clamped to a cooled electrostatic chuck," id. at i-f 6, the resulting aluminum
layer "exhibits an unfavourable grain structure comprising a very small
columnar grain separated by quite large voids," id. at i-f 7. Appellants
purport to achieve improved grain structure and low tensile stress through a
process in which a first deposition is performed with the substrate in an
undamped state such that the wafer temperature increases as a result of the
deposition process, followed by further deposition with the substrate
clamped to an actively cooled support. Id. at 6-7.
Sole independent claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A method of depositing a film on a substrate, comprising:
placing the substrate on a support;
depositing material comprising aluminum onto the
substrate while the substrate is supported by but is undamped
relative to the support and under a condition in which the
temperature of the substrate increases, to thereby form a first
metallic layer consisting of aluminum or an aluminum alloy on
the substrate; and
subsequently depositing material comprising aluminum
directly onto the first layer to form a second metallic layer,
consisting of aluminum or an aluminum alloy, continuously on
the first layer, and
2
Appeal2015-002127
Application 13/397,779
wherein the depositing of the material to form the second
layer is carried out while the substrate is supported by and
clamped to a support and is actively cooled to a temperature of
less than about 22 °C, and until the second layer is thicker than
the first layer.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintained the following grounds of rejection: 4
I. Claims 1--4, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Felmetsger5 and Kailasam. 6
II. Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Felmetsger, Kailasam, and King. 7
III. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Felmetsger, Kailasam, and Rich. 8
IV. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Felmetsger, Kailasam, and Wang.9
V. Claim 17 also stands rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
4 Final Act. 12-20; Ans. 2-10. Additional grounds of rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112 were withdrawn. Ans. 10.
5 US 2009/0246385 Al, published Oct. 1, 2009 ("Felmetsger").
6 US 7, 781,327 B 1, issued Aug. 24, 2010 ("Kailasam").
7 US 5,080,455, issued Jan. 14, 1992 ("King").
8 US 2004/015748 Al, published Aug. 12, 2004 ("Rich").
9 Wang, I., Thin Film Stresses in TiW/AlCuSi/TiW Sandwich Structures, 130
Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 1989, pp. 341-5 ("Wang").
3
Appeal2015-002127
Application 13/397,779
DISCUSSION
I
With regard to Rejection I, Appellants argue that neither Felmetsger
nor Kailasam teaches active cooling only during the second deposition step,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 31; Reply Br. 3. We agree.
Claim 1 requires a first deposition step during which "the temperature
of the substrate increases," and a subsequent deposition step during which
the substrate is "actively cooled to a temperature of less than about 22°C."
The Examiner found that Felmetsger discloses depositing an
aluminum film by a two-step process in which a first aluminum layer is
deposited on the substrate, after which a second, thicker aluminum layer is
deposited on the first. Final Act. 14. The Examiner also found that
Felmetsger "teaches the films are deposited at ambient temperature." Id.
Based on that teaching in Felmetsger, the Examiner found that one of
ordinary skill would have had a reason to "actively cool the substrate in
order to maintain the desired ambient temperature as sputtering alone would
raise the deposition [sic, substrate] temperature." Id. at 17.
Appellants argue (see App. Br. 25, 31; Reply Br. 3--4) even if
Felmetsger's teaching of sputtering at ambient temperature were sufficient to
suggest use of active cooling to offset deposition-induced heating, the
Examiner has not articulated a reason why one of ordinary skill would have
applied such cooling only during deposition of the second layer, while
permitting substrate temperature to increase during deposition of the first
layer. Nor does the Examiner identify any teaching in Felmetsger or
Kailasam which would support such a finding.
4
Appeal2015-002127
Application 13/397,779
On this record and for the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain
Rejection I.
II-IV
Because each of Rejections II-IV is premised on the same erroneous
finding as Rejection I, we will not sustain these Rejections for the same
reasons given above in connection with Rejection I.
v
Claim 1 7 recites that the aluminum alloy identified in claim 16 "is Al-
Cu-Si( <5%)." The Examiner found this recitation indefinite because "[i]t is
unclear if% is being defined as wt% or at%." 1° Final Act. 13. Appellants
do not dispute the Examiner's finding that it was known at least with regard
to phase diagrams to report alloy compositions in either wt% or at%. App.
Br. 23 ("That may be the case as concerns the phase diagrams ... '}
Appellants also do not dispute the Examiner's finding that "[t]he numerical
value of <5% would have a different numerical interpretation depending on
whether it is wt% or at%." Compare Ans. 3 with Reply Br. 1-8. Rather,
Appellants contend that the use of% alone to refer to weight % "is simply
common practice and common notation." App. Br. 23. However,
Appellants do not point us to persuasive evidence in support of their
contention that use of% alone would be understood to refer to weight
percent. On this record, we are persuaded that a preponderance of evidence
10 The abbreviations, wt% and at%, refer to weight percent and atomic
percent, respectively. Ans. 2.
5
Appeal2015-002127
Application 13/397,779
of record supports the Examiner's finding that claim 17 is indefinite.
Accordingly, we sustain Rejection V.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, 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.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
6