Ex Parte Matsuda

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

11084024 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TSUKASA MATSUDA ___________ Appeal 2009-014119 Application 11/084,024 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. SECOND DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Appellant requests a second rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 of our Decision on Request for Reconsideration (“Rehearing Decision” or “Reh’g Dec.”), entered June 15, 2012, in which we modified our original Decision, affirming the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-17. The Second Request for Rehearing is denied. Appeal 2009-014119 Application 11/084,024 2 DISCUSSION First, Appellant argues that “the rehearing decision has significantly modified the original decision such that the rehearing decision is, in effect, a new decision.” (Second Req. for Reh’g 1.) In particular, Appellant argues that “the original decision has been modified to add two full paragraphs” and “the reasoning has significantly changed from the original decision.” (Id.) However, Appellant’s argument does not point out with particularity or explain why the two newly added paragraphs have “significantly changed” the original decision. Second, Appellant advocates for the “Board to acknowledge that a new issue was raised and to designate its decision as a new ground of rejection.” (Second Req. for Reh’g 2.) In particular, Appellant states that “the reasoning provided in the above noted Rehearing Decision [at page 4] was never previously raised by the Examiner during prosecution or in the Examiner’s Answer.” (Id.) Appellant also states that “[i]n the present case, the rationale, in effect, changes the basic ‘thrust of the rejection’ by asserting new claim interpretations which were never asserted by the Examiner.” (Id. at 3.) However, it is not a new ground of rejection for the Board to respond to Appellant’s arguments using different language, or restating the reasoning of the rejection in a different way, so long as the evidence relied upon is the same and the “basic thrust of the rejection” is the same. See In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1303 (CCPA 1976). In particular, citing to a different portion of an applied reference, which “goes no farther than, and merely elaborates upon, what is taught by” the previously-cited portion of that Appeal 2009-014119 Application 11/084,024 3 reference relied upon by the Examiner, does not constitute a new ground of rejection. See In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1382 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Examiner’s Answer articulates that following facts and rationale for rejecting independent claim 1: Eom discloses a method for depositing a film on a substrate using a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process, comprising: . . . introducing within said process chamber, after the completion of the reduction reaction between the first and second process materials, a third material which is a reactive gas that chemically reacts with contaminants in said process chamber, to release the contaminants from at least one of a process chamber component or said substrate (Eom, Figure – [step C –(NH3)] and Abstract). (Ans. 5-6 (brackets in original).) In particular, the Examiner states that: “Eom teaches supplying a first process material TiCl with a second process material H2 during step A of the ALD cycle (Eom, figure [1]). The reaction that occurs between TiCl and H2 is understood in the art to be a reduction reaction.” (Ans. 15.) Page 4 of our Rehearing Decision states: “Furthermore, the claim language ‘after the completion of the reduction reaction between the first and second process materials’ is broad enough to encompass the ‘two-part reduction reaction’ of Eom that includes the reduction reaction between TiCl4 and H2 (i.e., the first step (A) of Eom (Eom, p. 6)).” Accordingly, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, our Rehearing Decision equates the claim language “after the completion of the reduction reaction between the first and second process materials” with the first step (A) of Eom. Moreover, the Examiner’s Answer states that: Appeal 2009-014119 Application 11/084,024 4 Step C of Eom introduces a third material NH3 into the ALD chamber. The NH3 is disclosed to react with the Ti metallic layer. In order for the NH3 to react with the Ti there must be Cl present (contaminant left from the first reaction of step A). During this step the Ti combines with N and the Cl contaminant combines with the H3, thereby forming a monolayer of TiN and a HCl by product. (Ans. 16.) Page 4 of our Rehearing Decision states: Likewise, the claim language “a third material which is a reactive gas that chemically reacts with contaminants” is broad enough to encompass the reaction between NH3 (i.e., the claimed “third material”) and TiClx to form TiN and a Cl- containing reaction by-product (i.e., the third step (C) of Eom (Eom, p. 7)). Similarly, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, our Rehearing Decision equates the claim language “a third material which is a reactive gas that chemically reacts with contaminants” with the third step (C) of Eom. Furthermore, claim construction is a matter of law that we review de novo. See In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Our claim construction supports the Examiner’s interpretation that Eom teaches the following claim limitation recited in independent claim 1: introducing within said process chamber, after the completion of the reduction reaction between the first and second process materials which deposited the metallic film on the substrate in a solid state, a third material which is a reactive gas that chemically reacts with contaminants in said process chamber to release the contaminants from at least one of a process chamber component or said substrate. Thus, because the basic thrust of the rejection is the same, our claim construction supports the Examiner’s interpretation, and we merely elaborated on the Examiner’s position, Appellant has been afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the rejection. See Kronig, 539 F.2d at 1303. Appeal 2009-014119 Application 11/084,024 5 CONCLUSION The Second Request for Rehearing is denied. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). REHEARING DENIED babc