Ex Parte Keigler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

12755198 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
12/755,198 04/06/2010 Arthur Keigler 4088-0107 8151
6449 7590 01/04/2017
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
CHUNG, HO-SUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
PTO-PAT-Email @rfem. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTHUR KEIGLER,
JOHANNES CHIU, ZHENQIU LIU,
and DANIEL GOODMAN
Appeal 2015-000967
Application 12/755,198
Technology Center 1700
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEST, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 4-15, 23-25, 27, 28, 30, and
31 of Application 12/755,198 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Final
Act. (October 31, 2013). Appellants1 seek reversal of these rejections
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We heard oral argument in this appeal on December 9, 2016.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE.
1 Tel Nexx, Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-000967
Application 12/755,198
BACKGROUND
The ’198 Application describes methods and apparatus for depositing
a metal into micro-scale recesses in the surface of a substrate coated with a
high resistivity metal film. Spec. 1. Such methods and apparatus may be
used to create through-silicon-via structures for use in the fabrication of
three dimensional electronic integrated devices. Id.
Claim 25 is representative of the ’198 Application’s claims and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
25. A method for coating and filling the interior surfaces of
microscale hole features fabricated into a surface of a
workpiece, the method comprising:
providing a workpiece with a barrier metal coating that is
substantially continuous along the surface of the workpiece and
the interior surfaces of the microscale hole features;
providing a first conductive coating after the providing of
the barrier metal coating, wherein the first conductive coating
has a thickness of1000 angstroms or greater on a top surface
of the workpiece and wherein the first conductive coating does
not substantially coat the interior surfaces of the microscale
hole features',
providing a second conductive coating by
electrodeposition, wherein the first conductive coating provides
substantially uniform electrical conduction across the
workpiece for electrodeposition of the second conductive
coating, and wherein at least part of the second conductive
coating is formed on and in contact with the first conductive
coating, and further wherein the second conductive coating is
deposited on interior surfaces of the microscale hole features
directly on the barrier metal coating and provides a finish
coating for subsequent filling of the microscale hole features;
and
filling the microscale hole features with a conductive
metal.
Appeal Br. 20 (emphasis added).
2
Appeal 2015-000967
Application 12/755,198
REJECTION
After entry of the Final Action, Appellants canceled claims 1,4-15,
23, and 24. Appeal Br. 2. Thus, only claims 25, 27, 28, 30, and 31 remain
pending in the ’198 Application. Id. These claims are subject to a single
ground of rejection:
1. Claims 25, 27, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Cohen2 and Chen.3 Final
Act. 2.
DISCUSSION
Claim 25 is directed to a method for coating and filling the interior
surfaces of microscale hole features comprising, in relevant part, providing a
first conductive coating on top of a barrier metal coating “wherein the first
conductive coating does not substantially coat the interior surfaces of the
microscale hole features.” See Appeal Br. 20 (claim 25). The Examiner
found that Cohen describes a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process that
meets these claim limitations. Final Act. 3—4 (citing Cohen col. 3,11. 34-37;
Fig. 3). Because this finding is erroneous, we reverse.
We begin, as we must, by considering the language of claim 25. See
Oakley, Inc. v. Sunglass Hut Int 7, 316 F.3d 1331, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(explaining that an obviousness analysis requires comparison of the properly
construed claims to the available prior art). In particular, we must construe
the phrase “substantially coat” as it is used within the context of claim 25.
2 US 6,136,707, issued October 24, 2000.
3 US 2005/0173252 Al, published August 11, 2005.
3
Appeal 2015-000967
Application 12/755,198
During prosecution, the PTO gives the language of the proposed
claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account any definitions or other enlightenment provided by the written
description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In this case, Appellants’ Specification does not demonstrate that the
phrase “substantially coat” is to be given a specific definition. Thus, we
begin by considering the broadest reasonable meaning of the phrase
“substantially coat” in its ordinary usage. A pertinent ordinary meaning of
the word “coat” is “to provide with a layer or covering of something.” See,
e.g., define: coat - Google Search, Google,
https://www.google.com/search?q=defme%3A+coat. A pertinent ordinary
meaning of the word “substantially” is “to a great or significant extent.”
define: substantially - Google Search, Google,
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+substantially; see also
substantially - definition of substantially in English \ Oxford Dictionaries,
Oxford Dictionaries, http://bit.ly/2hpCGfg (“to a great or significant
extent”); substantially Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary,
Cambridge Dictionary, http://bit.ly/2h5erQU (“to a large degree”).
We, therefore, conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the phrase “substantially coat” is “to cover to a great or significant extent.”
As shown in Figures 3 and 4 of Cohen, PVD layer 126 extends along
the sidewalls and completely covers the bottom of the microscale hole. The
Examiner places great weight on Cohen’s statement that “the non-conformal
PVD techniques, while providing adequate thickness on the field, fail[ed] to
provide continuous and complete step coverage inside very narrow openings
4
Appeal 2015-000967
Application 12/755,198
with large AR.” Cohen col. 3,11. 34-37. Based upon this statement, the
Examiner found that Cohen’s PVD layer does not substantially coat the
interior features of the microscale hole. Answer 18-20.
We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s reasoning. Cohen describes
the importance of having a continuous coating: “To ensure void-free copper
filling, the seed layer inside the openings must completely cover the bottom
and the sidewall surfaces inside the openings without discontinuities, or else
there will be voids in the copper electrofill.” Cohen col. 3,11. 8-12
(emphasis added). In view of this teaching, Cohen’s statement that the PVD
layer fails to provide continuous and complete coverage inside very narrow
openings means that the PVD layer contains some number of imperfections.
An imperfect coating layer, however, can still “cover [the interior features of
the microscale hole] to a great or significant extent.”
For the purpose of this opinion, we do not decide how imperfect a
layer must be so that it no longer covers the interior features of the
microscale hole to a great or significant extent. As shown in Figure 3, PVD
layer 126 extends along the sides and completely covers the bottom of the
microscale hole. Cohen further states that PVD processes also “result in
substantial overhangs at the top comers of the openings.” Cohen col. 3,11.
37-38. In view of this description and Cohen’s emphasis on the need for the
PVD layer to provide complete coverage without discontinuities, we
determine that the examiner erred by finding that Cohen describes a PVD
layer that does not cover the interior features of the microscale hole to a
great or significant extent.
5
Appeal 2015-000967
Application 12/755,198
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection of claims 25,
27,28, 30, and 31.
REVERSED
6