Ex Parte Thompson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2016

13713578 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
131713,578 12/13/2012 David Thompson
67251 7590 11/22/2016
SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT
33 WOOD A VE SOUTH
SUITE 830
!SELIN, NJ 08830
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
016863/USA/MDP/MDP-ALD/EM 1520
EXAMINER
SARKAR, ASOK K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2016 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):
docket@dsiplaw.com
jescobar@dsiplaw.com
lmurphy@dsiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. 1
Appellant
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
MONTE T. SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judges.
OGDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
decision 2 rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 14--20 in the above-identified
application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part and issue a new ground of rejection.
1 Applied Materials, Inc. is the applicant under 37 C.F.R. i-f 1.46 (2012), and
is identified as the real party in interest, see Appeal Brief 3, Dec. 10, 2014
[hereinafter Appeal Br.]. The listed inventors are David Thompson and
Jeffrey W. Anthis.
2 Office Action, July 11, 2014 [hereinafter Final Action].
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
BACKGROlH~D
Appellants' invention relates to depositing films on a substrate using a
tantalum precursor. Spec. 3 i-f 2. Independent claims 1 and 11 are
representative:
1. A method of depositing a film on a surface of a
semiconductor wafer by atomic layer deposition, the
method comprising:
exposing the surface of the semiconductor wafer to
alternating flows of a first precursor comprising
TaClxRs-x, TaBrxRs-x, or TalxRs-x, wherein Risa C1---Cs
alkyl ligand, and a second precursor comprising an
aluminum-containing compound sequentially, wherein x
has a value in the range of 1 to 4.
11. A method of depositing a film, the method comprising
exposing a substrate surface to flows of a first precursor
comprising TaCls coordinated to a ligand, wherein the
ligand comprises an amine ligand, and a second precursor
comprising an aluminum-containing compound.
Appeal Br. 31.
3 Substitute Specification, Dec. 13, 2012 [hereinafter Spec.].
2
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
I. Claims 1, 3-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Li4 in view ofMachida5 and Millward. 6 Final
Action 3-5; Answer 2--4.
II. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li in view of Machida, Millward, and Karnath. 7 Final
Action 5---6; Answer 4.
III. Claims 11, 12, and 14--19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Li in view of Jayaratne. 8 Final Action 6-7;
Answer 5.
4 Dong Li et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. US 2009/0315093 Al
(published Dec. 24, 2009) [hereinafter Li].
5 Machida Hideaki et al., Japanese Patent Application Pub. No. JP2000-
l 03796 A (published Apr. 11, 2000) [hereinafter Machida]. The Examiner
cites an "English Abstract," Final Action 3, and a "machine translation of the
original reference," Answer 2, but these documents were not entered into the
prosecution history of this application. Appellants have also reproduced an
English version of the Abstract of Machida, as well as an English translation
of part of paragraph 16. See Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6.
6 Dan Millward et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
US 2011/0071316 Al (published Mar. 24, 2011) [hereinafter Millward].
7 Arvind Karnath et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
US 2011/0017997 Al (published Jan. 27, 2011) [hereinafter Karnath].
8 Kumudini C. Jayaratne et al., Imido Complexes Derived from the Reactions
of Niobium and Tantalum Pentachlorides with Primary Amines: Relevance
to the Chemical Vapor Deposition of Metal Nitride Films, 35 Inorganic
Chemistry 4910 ( 1996) [hereinafter J ayaratne].
3
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
IV. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li in view of Jayaratne and Chizhikova. 9 Final Action 7-
8; Answer 5.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents distinct arguments for only
claims 1, 10, 7 and 8 (as a group), 11, and 20. See Appeal Br. 14--30.
Because Appellant argues claims 7 and 8 as a group, see id. at 22-24, we
select claim 7 as the basis of our decision relating to this group, and claim 8
stands or falls with claim 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Claims
3---6 depend from claim 1, and claims 12 and 14--19 depend from claim 11.
See Appeal Br. 31-32. Appellant does not advance any additional arguments
with respect to these dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 19-20, 27. For the
above reasons, we limit our discussion to claims 1, 10, 7, 11, and 20.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
Li teaches the production of a metal carbide film on a substrate using
"a first reactant that includes a metal source chemical and a second reactant
that includes an aluminum hydrocarbon compound" using "atomic layer
deposition (ALD) processes." Li i-fi-f 12-13. Li teaches that the metal source
chemical can be a tantalum halide of any of the formulas "TaBrw, TaClz, and
Taiz, where w ... and z are numbers from 1 to 5." Id. i151; see also id.
i-fi-132, 46, 51, p. 9 (claims 1, 6, 8).
9 S.M. Chizhikova et al., Study of the Thermal Decomposition of Niobium
and Tantalum Chloride-Organic Complexes, 5 Izvestiya Akademii Nauk
SSSR, Metally 64 (1980) [hereinafter Chizhikova].
4
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
The Examiner cites Li as teaching the limitations of claim 1, except
that Li does not teach that the tantalum source chemical has the formula
TaClxRs-x, TaBrxRs-x, or TalxRs-x, where R is a C1---Cs alkyl ligand and x
ranges from 1 to 4. See Final Action 3. However, the Examiner finds that
Machida teaches a genus of tantalum source chemicals for use in forming
barrier films that includes the genus of tantalum precursor chemicals set
forth in Appellant's claim 1. See id. at 3--4; Answer 2-3. Although Machida
refers to use of the precursors in chemical vapor deposition (CVD), see
Appeal Br. 15 (quoting Machida, Abstract (English translation)), the
Examiner finds that metal containing complexes that include organic ligands
can be used in both CVD and ALD processes in order to form metal-
containing layers. See Final Action 4 (citing Millard i-fi-1 6, 70-95). Thus, the
Examiner finds that in depositing tantalum-aluminum films, CVD and ALD
methods may be used interchangeably with respect to the tantalum
precursors disclosed in Machida. See Answer 3. In light of these findings,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to use Machida's tantalum precursors as the tantalum
source chemicals used in the ALD process described by Li. See Final Action
4; Answer 3. 10
Appellant argues that the Examiner provided insufficient "technical
findings or arguments[] as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would
10 The Examiner alternatively concludes that the statement in the preamble
of claim 1 that the film is deposited by ALD is not entitled to patentable
weight, and that claim 1 is therefore obvious in view of the teachings of Li
and Machida. See Answer 3. Because we affirm the Examiner's decision to
reject claim 1 based on the combined teachings of Li, Machida, and
Millward, we need not address the Examiner's alternative ground of
rejection.
5
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
achieve by modifying the references." Appeal Br. 14. This is because,
according to Appellant, Machida does not teach that the disclosed tantalum
precursors form deposited layers that have "excellent barrier properties," as
the Examiner's findings indicate. See id. at 14--15 (quoting Final Action 4).
Appellant also argues that "the alleged benefit [of excellent barrier
properties] is related to a property of the Ta-containing layers, and fails to
identify anything related to using a TaClxRs-x, TaBrxRs-x, or TalxRs-x,
precursor." Id. at 15.
These arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner reversibly
erred in rejecting claim 1. In discussing the Examiner's findings with
respect to Machida, the Examiner cited an "English Abstract," 11 Final Action
3--4, and a "machine translation of the original reference." Answer 2.
These documents were not entered into the prosecution history of this
application. However, Appellant did not challenge these omissions prior to
filing Appellant's Appeal or Reply briefs by petition under 37 § C.F.R.
1.181. Moreover, the record does not show that Appellant has been
prejudiced by these omissions, because Appellant has reproduced its own
English translation of the Machida Abstract in the briefs, see Appeal Br. 15;
Reply Br. 5---6, and has discussed and quoted portions of the original
Machida reference cited by the Examiner, see Reply Br. 6. See Appeal Br.
15; Reply Br. 6. Moreover, Appellant does not specifically challenge the
Examiner's characterization that the original Machida reference teaches that
11 The "English Abstract" used by the Examiner does not appear to be the
English translation of the Abstract taken from the front page of the Machida
publication, because the latter Abstract does not refer to "excellent barrier
properties," as the Examiner indicated was taught by "the English Title and
the Abstract of the paper." See Final Action 3--4.
6
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
the cited compounds have the "benefit of providing a better precursor
material for Ta system barrier film formation for [a] Cu wiring system."
Answer 2 (citing Machida i-fi-15, 6, 20); see also Reply Br. 5---6. Rather,
Appellant argues that its own English translation of Machida "does not
actually teach the benefit being relied upon" by the Examiner. Appeal Br.
15. The English version of the Machida Abstract that Appellant reproduces
in the briefs, however, teaches "a Ta membrane-forming material that is
useful as a chemical vapor deposition material for forming a Ta thin layer
membrane of high quality." Appeal Br. 15 (quoting Machida Abstract
(English translation)); Reply Br. 5. Therefore, we are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner's determination that Machida teaches a reason for a person
of ordinary skill in the art to have used Machida's tantalum precursors in
forming barrier layers, or at least in forming high quality tantalum films on a
substrate.
Appellant also argues that Machida teaches a class of tantalum
precursors that is substantially larger than the genus described in claim 1,
and that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale for why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the specific
compounds used in the method of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 16; Reply Br. 6---
11. In particular, Appellant notes that the class of compounds disclosed in
Machida includes preferred compounds in which sulfur ligands are attached
to the alkyl metal moiety. See Reply Br. 6 (citing Machida i-f 16). Moreover,
according to Appellant, Machida's general formula Rn TaX5-n-L "provides
for 30 different possible permutations," where "R can be 14 different
categories of substituents," and in total, the class may include "billions of
separate compound[s]." Id. at 6---8. However, as Appellant notes, Machida
7
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
teaches that "as a Ta system film formation material," several specific
compounds are identified, including "CH3 TaCl4, (CH3)2 TaCh, [and]
(CH3)3 TaCb" and four other compounds with sulfur ligands. Reply Br. 6
(quoting Machida i-f 16). Moreover, these compounds, including the three
compounds without sulfur ligands, are described as "preferable." See id.
Because Machida directs a person of ordinary skill in the art to at least three
specific precursors within the scope of claim 1, Appellant's arguments do
not persuade us of reversible error in the rejection.
Appellant also argues that the Examiner's reliance on Millward to
establish that CVD and ALD are known alternatives is conclusory and lacks
a sufficient technical basis to establish the rejection. See Appeal Br. 16-19;
Reply Br. 8-10. Having carefully considered these arguments, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner's reliance on Millward constitutes reversible
error. In support of the rejection, the Examiner cites paragraphs 6 and 70-95
of Millward. See Final Action 4. These passages clearly support the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness by teaching that ALD is an
alternative method to CVD, and preferable for the deposition process
disclosed in Millward, see Millward i-f 75, which involves the formation of
metal-containing layers on a substrate from a metal precursor that has
organic ligands, see id. i-f 6. Moreover, Millward teaches that by a choice of
deposition parameters, an ALD process can be modified to act like a pulsed
CVD process, see Millward i-f 84; see also id. i-f 74; Answer 3 ("[I]t would
have been obvious ... to judiciously adjust and control the deposition
parameters with these modified precursors during the ALD deposition ... to
achieve optimum benefits .... "). By a preponderance of the evidence on
this record, we find that the Examiner has pointed to sufficient evidence and
8
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
has established a sufficient technical rationale to combine the teachings of
Millward with Li and Machida.
We have considered Appellant's argument that Millward teaches away
from the interchangeability of ALD and CVD in the context of using the
Machida precursors and the ALD process of Li. See Appeal Br. 17-19.
According to Appellant, "Millward teaches a person of ordinary skill in the
art that the suitability of compounds for CVD and ALD vary depending on
the different reactivities of the compounds," id. at 17 (citing Millward i-f 90),
and "Millward indicates that a compound that works for ALD may not work
for CVD, and vice versa," id. at 19. While Millward teaches that some
reagents suitable for ALD may not be suitable for CVD, see Millward i-f 90,
we are not persuaded that Millward teaches the reverse-that reagents like
the Machida precursors that are suitable for CVD would not also be suitable
for ALD. Nor has Appellant directed us to any other evidence on this record
showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that
the substitution of organic ligands in a tantalum halide precursor would
render the resulting precursor unsuitable for use in an ALD process.
Therefore, by a preponderance of the evidence on this record, we are
not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. For
the same reasons, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's
rejections of claims 3-6.
Claim 10
As explained below, we issue a new ground of rejection that claim 10
is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, as failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that Appellant regards as the
invention. A rejection based on prior art cannot be based on speculations
9
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
and assumptions. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385(CCPA1970); In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962). Therefore, we reverse, proforma,
the Examiner's decision to reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Our
decision to reverse the § 103 rejection should not be interpreted as taking
any position on the merits of the rejection.
Claims 7, 11, and 20
Claim 7 requires that "the aluminum-containing compound comprises
an alane-amine complex." Appeal Br. 31. The Examiner finds that Karnath
teaches this limitation, see Final Action 5, and that it would have been
obvious "to modify Li in view of Machida and Millward" and use an alane-
amine complex "for the benefit of forming aluminum and nitrogen
containing diffusion barriers as taught by Karnath in paragraph 24." Final
Action 5---6. The Examiner also finds that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated by the "benefit of introducing extra nitrogen
into the diffusion barrier to improve the barrier properties." Answer 5.
In rejecting independent claim 11, the Examiner cites Jayaratne as
teaching a "Ta precursor comprising TaCls coordinated to an amine ligand,"
and concludes that it would have been obvious to use this precursor "for the
benefit of depositing TaN films by chemical vapor deposition process from a
single source precursor as taught by J ayaratne under the Introduction in page
4910." Final Action 7. The Examiner also determines that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by "the benefit of
forming a predictable metal nitride film comprising carbon and aluminum."
Answer 5.
Li's process relates to forming a metal carbide film. See, e.g., Li
i-fi-f 12, et seq. However, both Karnath and Jayaratne describe methods of
10
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
producing metal nitride films. See, e.g., Karnath i124; Jayaratne 4910. The
Examiner's grounds for rejecting claims 7 and 11 rely on the finding that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adapt Li's
ALD process to form metal nitride films or metal carbide films enhanced by
the addition of nitride. However, the Examiner has not set forth a persuasive
rationale to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
adapted the teachings of Li to produce a metal nitride or metal nitride-
enhanced film, or why these combinations of prior art teachings would have
led to predictable results.
Claim 20 depends from claim 11, and the Examiner's grounds for
rejecting claim 20 do not cure the above deficiency. Because the Examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claims
7, 11, and 20, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject those claims. For
the same reasons, we also reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 8,
12, and 14--19.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
We determine that claim 10 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
paragraph 2, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter that Appellants regard as the invention, and we designate this
as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Claim 10 depends from claim 1, and further requires that "the
substrate surface is exposed to the first and second precursor concurrently or
substantially concurrently." Appeal Br. 31. This language is not clearly
consistent with claim 1, which is directed to "a method of depositing a film
on a surface of a semiconductor wafer by atomic layer deposition," and
11
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
requires "exposing the surface of the semiconductor wafer to alternating
flows of a first precursor ... and a second precursor ... sequentially." Id.
The Specification describes an embodiment in which the precursors are
exposed to the substrate "concurrently or substantially concurrently" as an
"alternative" to an embodiment in which the precursors are exposed
"sequentially or substantially sequentially." See Spec. i-f 9; accord id. i-f 12;
see also id. i-f 26 (describing the two embodiments as "variants" as to how
the precursor flows vary in timing). Thus, claim 10 is ambiguous as to the
timing of the precursor flows, and whether they are (substantially) sequential
or concurrent. Because of this ambiguity, claim 10 is indefinite. See Ex
Parte Kenichi Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)
("An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are
precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties
of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative
process." (quoting In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989))).
This is a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b),
which provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph
shall not be considered final for judicial review." Section 41.50(b) also
provides as follows:
When the Board enters such a non-final decision, the appellant,
within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground
of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amend-
ment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the
claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by
the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded
to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the
12
Appeal2015-005753
Application 13/713,578
examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously
of Record is made which, in the opinion of the examiner, over-
comes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision.
Should the examiner reject the claims, appellant may again ap-
peal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be re-
heard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The
request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection
and state with particularity the points believed to have been mis-
apprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejec-
tion and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is
sought.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure§ 1214.01.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3---6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 7, 8, 10-12, and 14----20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 2, and this
rejection is designated as a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b ).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART; NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
13