Ex Parte Lin

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 9, 2012

11779741 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 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. 11/779,741 07/18/2007 Cheng-Ming Lin 2006-0983 / 24061.906 2754 42717 7590 10/10/2012 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER SULLIVAN, CALEEN O ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1722 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/10/2012 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-MING LIN ________________ Appeal 2011-005523 Application 11/779,741 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and CATHERINE Q. TIMM, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005523 Application 11/779,741 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device. Claims 1 and 3 are illustrative: 1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a plurality of first features in a substrate using at least a first one of a plurality of phase shift masks; forming a plurality of layers over the substrate; and forming a plurality of second features in the layers from corresponding ones of the plurality of layers using second ones of the plurality of phase shift masks; wherein all of the plurality of phase shift masks, including the first one and the second ones and any others of the plurality of phase shift masks used to manufacture the semiconductor device, have substantially the same pattern loading at outer areas of the phase shift masks. 3. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: forming an active region in a device substrate using a first phase shift mask (PSM) having a first patterned light shielding layer formed thereon; forming a polysilicon feature on the device substrate over the active region using a second PSM having a second patterned light shielding layer formed thereon; Appeal 2011-005523 Application 11/779,741 3 forming a contact feature on the polysilicon feature using a third PSM having a third patterned light shielding layer formed thereon; and forming a metal feature on the contact feature using a fourth PSM having a fourth patterned light shielding layer formed thereon; wherein at least one of the third and fourth patterned light shielding layers is patterned substantially similarly to at least one of the first and second patterned light shielding layers. The References Shamble US 5,044,750 Sep. 3, 1991 Tzu US 6,630,408 B1 Oct. 7, 2003 Dirksen US 7,037,626 B2 May 2, 2006 The Rejections The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Dirksen, claims 3-5 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dirksen, claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dirksen in view of Tzu, and claims 8-11 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dirksen in view of Shamble. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) “Anticipation requires that every limitation of the claim in issue be disclosed, either expressly or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art reference.” Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1255-56 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Appellant’s claim 1, which is the sole independent claim among claims 1 and 2, requires that all phase shift masks have substantially the Appeal 2011-005523 Application 11/779,741 4 same pattern loading at outer areas of the phase shift masks. The Appellant’s Specification indicates that the pattern loading at the outer area of a phase shift mask is the area occupied by the phase shift mask’s patterned light shielding layer (¶¶ 0022-23, 0025; claim 2). The Examiner argues that “one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret ‘outer areas’ to be the outer area of the image or pattern shown on the mask(s), which in [Dirksen’s] Figure 2a would be (10) and in Figure 2b would be (14). Based on this reasonable interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Figures 2a and 2b do illustrate the limitation of claim 1, ‘wherein all of the plurality of phase shift masks . . . have substantially the same pattern loading at outer areas thereof’” (Ans. 12- 13). Dirksen’s Figures 2a and 2b show only a portion of each masks’ patterned light shielding layer (chrome layer 12 in Figure 2a and chrome layer 16 in Figure 2b) (col. 9, ll. 16-18; col. 12, ll. 17-22). Those figures, therefore, do not indicate whether the masks have the same pattern loading. The Examiner argues that the Appellant’s Figures 5 and 6 support the Examiner’s argument because they show a center pattern surrounded by an area having no pattern which, the Examiner argues, also is shown in Dirksen’s Figures 2a and 2b (Ans. 13). Dirksen’s Figures 2a and 2b show only a portion of each mask’s patterned light shielding layer (chrome layer 12 in Figure 2a and chrome layer 16 in Figure 2b), each corresponding to a portion of either chrome patterned light shielding layer 540 in the Appellant’s Figure 5 or chrome patterned light shielding layer 640 in the Appellant’s Figure 6 (Spec. ¶¶ 0024, 0026). The Examiner has not established that Dirksen indicates Appeal 2011-005523 Application 11/779,741 5 that the chrome layers (12, 16) are the same size, i.e., have the same pattern loading. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 We need to address only the independent claims (3 and 12).1 Claim 3 requires that “at least one of the third and fourth patterned light shielding layers is patterned substantially similarly to at least one of the first and second patterned light shielding layers” and claim 12 requires that “at least one of the first and second patterned light shielding layers and at least one of the third and fourth patterned light shielding layers have substantially the same pattern loading.” The Examiner argues that the masks in Dirksen’s Figures 2a and 2b are patterned substantially similarly and have substantially the same pattern loading (Ans. 8, 15-16). The Examiner has not established that Dirksen’s Figure 2a’s mask feature 10 and Figure 2b’s mask feature 14, each of which Dirksen describes as a “stroke-shaped opening” (col. 12, ll. 19-22), have substantially the same pattern. Also, as set forth above regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Dirksen’s Figures 2a and 2b show only a portion of each masks’ patterned light shielding layer (chrome layer 12 in Figure 2a and chrome layer 16 in Figure 2b) (col. 9, ll. 16-18; col. 12, ll. 17-22) and, therefore, do not indicate whether the masks have substantially the same pattern loading. 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Shamble or Tzu for any disclosure that remedies the deficiency in Dirksen as to the independent claims (Ans. 8-12). Appeal 2011-005523 Application 11/779,741 6 Dirksen uses multiple masks so that mask features such as 10 in Figure 2a and 14 in Figure 2b which are transferred to device features 40 and 44, respectively, in Figure 3h are imaged separately rather than simultaneously, thereby resulting in the minimum distance between those device features being determined by the accuracy with which a mask feature can be positioned with respect to a previously-configured device feature rather than being determined by the resolution of the imaging projection system (col. 13, ll. 9-11, 19-26).2 The Examiner has not provided evidence or reasoning which shows that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by Dirksen to form those device features using masks having substantially the same pattern or pattern loading. We therefore reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Dirksen, claims 3-5 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dirksen, claims 6, 7, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dirksen in view of Tzu, and claims 8-11 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Dirksen in view of Shamble are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED bar 2 The device features can be interlaced or overlapping (col. 4, ll. 52-54).