Ex Parte Rathi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

12025615 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 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.
12/025,615 02/04/2008 Sudha Rathi 013002/USA DSM/BCVD 1597
44257 7590 09/17/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
CHACKO DAVIS, DABORAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2012 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 SUDHA RATHI, EUI KYOON KIM, BOK HOEN KIM,
MARTIN JAY SEAMONS, and FRANCIMAR CAMPANA SCHMITT

____________

Appeal 2011-006973
Application 12/025,615
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and
ROMULO H. DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006973
Application 12/025,615

2
Sudha Rathi, et al., the Appellants,1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a method for fabricating a substrate used in
the semiconductor industry. Specification (“Spec.”) ¶ [0001].
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the appealed subject matter, is
reproduced below (with the disputed limitation shown in italics):
1. A method of processing a substrate comprising:
depositing an amorphous carbon layer on a surface of the
substrate;
depositing an anti-reflective coating layer on the
amorphous carbon layer, wherein the anti-reflective coating
layer comprises one or more dielectric anti-reflective materials
selected from the group consisting of silicon-rich oxide, silicon
nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon carbide, silicon oxycarbide,
nitrogen doped silicon carbide, nitrogen doped silicon
oxycarbide, and combinations thereof;
depositing an organic adhesion promotion layer on the
anti-reflective coating layer; and
depositing a resist material on the organic adhesion
promotion layer.
App. Br. 24 (Claims App’x).

1 The Appellants state that the real party in interest is Applied Materials, Inc.
Appeal Brief filed August 23, 2010 (“Br.”) at 3.
2 Br. 5; Final Office Action mailed March 17, 2010; Examiner’s Answer
mailed November 10, 2010 (“Ans.”) at 3-10.
Appeal 2011-006973
Application 12/025,615

3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, and 12 as unpatentable over Latchford3 in
view of Adkisson;4
II. Claims 4 and 6 as unpatentable over Latchford in view of
Adkisson and further in view of Richter;5
III. Claims 7 and 13 as unpatentable over Latchford in view of
Adkisson and further in view of Kim6 and Yen; 7
IV. Claim 9 as unpatentable over Latchford in view
of Adkisson and further in view of Yen;
V. Claim 10 as unpatentable over Latchford in view of Adkisson
and further in view of Dichiara.8
Ans. 4-26.

ISSUE
With respect to Rejection I, the Appellants argue the claims together.
Br. 9-15. Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of the claims
subject to this ground of rejection and confine our discussion to this selected
claim. Thus, claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, and 12 stand or fall with claim 1. 37

3 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0233257 A1 published October
20, 2005.
4 U.S. Patent 6,030,541 issued February 29, 2000.
5 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0078738 A1 published April 3,
2008.
6 U.S. Patent 6,927,178 B2 issued August 9, 2005.
7 U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0009345 A1 published January
13, 2005.
8 U.S. Patent 5,401,614 issued March 28, 1995.
Appeal 2011-006973
Application 12/025,615

4
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). With respect to Rejections II–V, the Appellants
assert that the additionally cited references also do not teach or suggest the
claimed subject matter and again rely on the arguments made against
Rejection I. Br. 16-22. Therefore, our discussion of Rejection I applies with
equal force to Rejections II–V.
The Examiner found that Latchford describes every limitation of
claim 1 except for the recited anti-reflective coating (ARC) layer. Ans. 11-
13. To account for the difference between the claimed subject matter and
Latchford, the Examiner relied on the teachings of Adkisson. Specifically,
the Examiner found Adkisson to teach that silicon oxynitride or silicon
nitride is an ARC layer, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been prompted to substitute Latchford’s ARC structure with
Adkisson’s silicon oxynitride or silicon nitride ARC layer. Id. at 13.
The Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to provide a sufficient
rationale for combining the references and that the combination does not
result in the claimed subject matter. Br. 9-15.
Thus, the dispositive issue arising from these contentions is:
Did the Appellants show that the Examiner erred by failing to provide
some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support a
conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
teachings of Latchford and Adkisson in the manner claimed by the
Appellants?

Appeal 2011-006973
Application 12/025,615

5
DISCUSSION
We start with claim construction. The term “organic adhesion
promotion layer” recited in claim 1 reads on an amorphous carbon material.
Spec. ¶ [0039]; see also claim 5.
Latchford describes a method of fabricating an integrated circuit
involving the use of a silicon-containing photoresist. ¶ [0003]. Specifically,
the method includes forming a first amorphous carbon layer on a silicon
substrate, forming a second amorphous carbon layer on the first amorphous
carbon layer, and then forming an energy sensitive (deep ultraviolet or DUV
radiation) resist material. ¶¶ [0009], [0065]-[0070]; Figs. 5A-5D.
According to Latchford, the multi-layer amorphous carbon layers constitute
an ARC structure, in which the first amorphous carbon layer is designed
primarily for light absorption and the second amorphous carbon layer is
designed primarily for phase shift cancellation. ¶¶ [0066]-[0068]. In
addition, Latchford teaches that additional amorphous carbon layers may be
included in the multi-layered amorphous carbon structure. ¶ [0069].
Latchford’s paragraph [0074], which was also cited by the Examiner
at page 6 of the Answer, teaches forming a material layer (e.g., a silicon
nitride layer) on a substrate, forming an amorphous carbon layer on top of
the material layer, and then forming a photoresist layer on top of the
amorphous carbon layer. Latchford further teaches that “embodiments of
the invention contemplate that the amorphous carbon layer may either be
deposited directly on the wafer . . . or alternatively, on top of one or more
layers that are deposited on the wafer.” Id.
Adkisson teaches that silicon nitride is a known inorganic ARC layer
that is applied to substrates prior to applying the photoresist. Col. 2, ll. 9-23;
Appeal 2011-006973
Application 12/025,615

6
col. 4, ll. 14-18. Adkisson states that when the ARC is an inorganic
material, it bounces back any light at about a ¼ wavelength offset, thereby
resulting in wave cancellation. Col. 2, ll. 12-15.
Given these teachings, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art in view of Latchford and Adkisson. Specifically, in
the case where additional amorphous carbon layers are included in
Latchford’s multi-layered amorphous carbon structure, a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been prompted to substitute one or more of the
amorphous carbon layers with silicon nitride, a well-known ARC material
that imparts wave cancellation, based on a reasonable expectation that these
materials would be interchangeable as ARC materials. KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure
already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one
element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than
yield a predictable result.”); In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1340 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (“Because the applicants merely substituted one element known in the
art for a known equivalent, this court affirms [the rejection for
obviousness].”); In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“Express
suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to
render such substitution obvious.”).
Moreover, the method described in Latchford’s paragraph [0074]
differs from that of claim 1 only in that an amorphous carbon material is not
disposed between the substrate and the silicon nitride layer. As we found
above, however, Latchford teaches that the amorphous carbon layer may
either be deposited directly on the wafer or on top of one or more layers that
Appeal 2011-006973
Application 12/025,615

7
are deposited on the wafer. This explicit teaching would have reasonably
suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a structure with an
amorphous carbon layer on either side of the silicon nitride layer would also
work.
For these reasons, we do not find any of the Appellants’ arguments
persuasive to show error requiring reversal of the Examiner’s rejection.
Therefore, we uphold each of the Examiner’s rejections.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, and 12 as
unpatentable over Latchford in view of Adkisson is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 6 as unpatentable over
Latchford in view of Adkisson and further in view of Richter is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 13 as unpatentable over
Latchford in view of Adkisson and further in view of Kim and Yen is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Latchford in
view of Adkisson and further in view of Yen is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Latchford
in view of Adkisson and further in view of Dichiara 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(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

sld