Ex Parte Ramaswamy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2013

10932151 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

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. 10/932,151 09/01/2004 Nirmal Ramaswamy MI22-2621 9404 21567 7590 09/03/2013 Wells St. John P.S. 601 West First Avenue Suite 1300 Spokane, WA 99201-3828 EXAMINER POMPEY, RON EVERETT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2812 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2013 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 NIRMAL RAMASWAMY, GURTEJ S. SANDHU, CHRIS M. CARLSON and F. DANIEL GEALY ____________ Appeal 2011-000412 Application 10/932,151 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000412 Application 10/932,151 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 1-24, 27-39, and 106-113. Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to a method of forming a layer in a semiconductor device comprising epitaxial silicon. Appeal Brief 4. Illustrative Claim 1. A method of forming a layer comprising epitaxial silicon, comprising: providing an opening within a first material received over a monocrystalline material; lining opposing sidewalls of the opening with a second material which is different in composition from the first material, monocrystalline material being exposed at a base of the opening between laterally spaced portions of the second material received within the opening; within a chamber, epitaxially growing a silicon- comprising layer from the exposed monocrystalline material within the second material-lined opening; within the same chamber in which the epitaxially growing occurs, in situ etching away at least a portion of the laterally spaced portions of the second material from the opening; and removing all of the first material within which the opening was provided from being received over the monocrystalline material and incorporating the epitaxially grown silicon-comprising layer into a channel region of a vertically oriented field effect transistor having one source/drain region received elevationally inward of the channel region and another source/drain region received elevationally outward of the channel region. Appeal 2011-000412 Application 10/932,151 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 17, 27, 28, 30, and 111-113 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown (U.S. Patent Number 6,756,625 B2; issued June 29, 2004), Moslehi (U.S. Patent Number 5,073,516; issued December 17, 1991), and Davis (U.S. Patent Number 4,816,098; issued March 28, 1989). Answer 3-7. Claims 106, 108, and 110 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Chaudhry (U.S. Patent Number 7,003,877 B2; issued April 25, 2006), and Davis. Answer 7-10. Claims 107 and 109 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown, Chaudhry, Davis, and Reisman (U.S. Patent Number 5,039,625; issued August 13, 1991). Answer 10. ISSUE Do Brown, Moslehi, Chaudhry, Davis, and Reisman, either alone or in combination, teach a method of forming an epitaxial silicon layer wherein in situ removal of at least a portion of laterally spaced sidewalls occur in the same chamber? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds: Davis discloses, the limitations not shown by Brown or Moslehi: Claims 1, 27 and 111: epitaxially growing and etching away of material in situ (col. 40, In. 64 - col. 41, In. 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the epitaxially growing a silicon-comprising layer and removal of second material lining in Brown and Moslehi, with the in situ processes of epitaxially growing a layer and removing of material as taught by Davis, Appeal 2011-000412 Application 10/932,151 4 because it takes less time and more cost efficient to remove the material in situ. Additionally the processes of Davis will occur in the same order disclosed in Brown and Moslehi. Answer 7. Davis discloses: The process module shown in FIG. 22 has separate energy sources for internal remote microwave plasma generation, RF in situ plasma generation, and radiant heat applied to the same process chamber within the module. The energy sources can be separately controlled either singly or in any combination. The process module provides dry in situ cleanup, high temperature native oxide removal, enhanced film deposition utilizing Radiant Heat. It is also capable of lower temperature epitaxial film growth with a remote plasma source combined with radiant heat. Furthermore, it is capable of dry etch, including isotropic and anisotropic processes, by using in situ RF and remote plasma in combination. Pre-etch, etch, and post etch processes, direct react and/or rapid thermal processes can also be performed. The process module can, therefore, sequentially perform several different process without moving the wafer. Davis, column 40, lines 64-68; column 41 lines 1-13. Appellants argue that Davis does not address the deficiencies of Brown and Moslehi. Appeal Brief 13. Appellants argue: Davis discloses a process module that is suitable for, inter alia, “epitaxial film growth” and etch processes (col. 40, line 64 - col. 41, line 13). Davis does not disclose or suggest any particular processes or materials, structure, etc. to be processed within the module. The teaching of a module capable of performing various processes does not disclose or suggest, or when combined with Brown and Moslehi, contribute toward suggesting the specifically recited processing including epitaxially growing of a silicon-comprising material followed by in situ removal of Appeal 2011-000412 Application 10/932,151 5 at least a portion of a second material. Therefore, as combined with Brown and Moslehi, Davis does not overcome the deficiencies of Brown and Moslehi with respect to claims 1 and 27. Accordingly, the cited art does not teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1 or claim 27. Appeal Brief 13. We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings and find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Davis discloses that several processes can be performed without moving the semiconductor wafer (column 41, lines 11- 13). However, Davis does not disclose nor suggest the method claimed by Appellants in independent claims 1, 27, and 111. The Examiner relies upon Davis to address the deficiencies of Brown and Chaudhry in regard to independent claims 106 and 108 finding that Davis discloses or suggest “epitaxially growing and etching away material in situ.” Answer 9. We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings for the same reasons as we stated above. Subsequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 1, 27, 106, 108, and 111, nor do we sustain Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2-24, 28-39, 107, 109, 110, 112, and 113. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1-24, 27-39, and 106-113 are reversed. REVERSED llw