Ex Parte TING

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2018

13948799 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/948,799 07/23/2013 Hui-Wen TING
95496 7590 11/05/2018
Hauptman Ham, LLP (TSMC)
2318 Mill Road
Suite 1400
Alexandria, VA 22314
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.
T5057-913 5936
EXAMINER
DION, MARCEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3723
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2018 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):
tsmc@ipfirm.com
sramunto@ipfirm.com
pair_lhhb@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUI-WEN TING
Appeal2017---009826 1
Application 13/948,799
Technology Center 3700
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and JILL D.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Hui-Wen Ting ("Appellant") appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1--4 and 6-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Applicant, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Company, Ltd., is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
BACKGROUND
Independent claims 1, 16, and 21 are pending. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, illustrates the claimed invention.
1. A planarization device, comprising:
a planarization pad; and
a pad conditioner over the planarization pad, the pad
conditioner comprising:
a rotatable plate having a lower surface separated
from an upper surface of the planarization pad by a
predetermined distance;
at least one nozzle opening on the lower surface of
the rotatable plate; and
a fluid dispensing unit configured to selectively
dispense a fluid material onto the upper surface of the
planarization pad through the at least one nozzle opening
based on an operating mode of the planarization device,
wherein
the fluid material comprises an acid when the fluid
dispensing unit is operated before or after a planarization
process performed by the planarization device,
the lower surface of the rotatable plate is a closest surface
of the pad conditioner to the upper surface of the planarization
pad,and
the pad conditioner is configured to maintain at least the
predetermined distance between the lower surface of the
rotatable plate and the upper surface of the planarization pad
when in use.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 9 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
II. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Torii (US 2002/0039880 Al, pub. Apr. 4, 2002),
Cheng (US 2004/0038632 Al, pub. Feb. 26, 2004), and Watanabe (US
6,086,454, iss. July 11, 2000). Final Act. 3.
III. Claims 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Torii, Cheng, and Collier (US 7,014,552 B 1, iss. Mar. 21,
2006). Final Act. 9.
IV. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Torii, Cheng, Watanabe, and Kramer (US 2003/0060130 Al, pub. Mar.
2 7, 2003 ). Final Act. 11.
V. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Torii, Cheng, Collier, and Kramer. Final Act. 12.
VI. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Torii, Cheng, Watanabe, and Fujita (US 2008/0070488 Al, pub. Mar.
20, 2008). Final Act. 12.
VII. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Torii, Cheng, Collier, and Oikawa (US 2009/0301518 Al, pub. Dec.
10, 2009). Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Written Description
Claim 9 recites
the fluid material further comprises one or more of water, de-
ionized water, NH4QH based solution, KOH based solution,
silica based solution, cerium based solution, or hydrous solution
having a water weight percentage greater than 20%, when the
fluid dispensing unit is operated before or after the
planarization process performed by the planarization device,
3
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
and the acid comprises at least one of an HF based solution or a
citric acid based solution.
Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.). Claim 25 has a substantially similar
recitation.
The Examiner determines that the fluid mixture specified in claims 9
and 25 has no support in the originally-filed Specification. Final Act. 2-3.
According to the Examiner, the Appellant's Specification discusses fluid
material in paragraphs 21 and 3 3, "and only describes these elements as
being alternatively used," such that "[t]here is no description of the fluid
material comprising any combination of these materials, let alone this
specific combination." Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's determination is in error,
because their originally filed Specification discloses their "'fluid material
158 includes water, de-ionized water, NH40H based solution, HF based
solution, KOH based solution, or citric acid based solution, silica based
solution, cerium based solution, or hydrous solution having a water weight
percentage greater than 20%. "' Appeal Br. 9 ( citing Spec. ,r 21) ( emphases
as in original). Appellant contends that it is unreasonable for the Examiner
to assert that the Specification only provides support for the individually-
listed components, and not combinations thereof. Id. at 10. Appellant
contends that the "or" should be defined as "'used in logic as a sentential
connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of
its constituent sentences is true,"' such that one skilled in the art would
understand "or" in claims 9 and 25 "to suggest that at least one of the listed
components is included in the fluid, not that only one of the ... listed
4
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
components is included in the fluid ... in isolation." Appeal Br. 10 ( citing
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary ( emphasis added by Appellant)).
Appellant further argues that that the Specification explicitly discloses
the fluid including a "'hydrous solution having a water weight percentage
greater than 20%, "' which contemplates a variety of solutions including
water, and that one skilled in the art "would understand that dispersing acids,
such as the described HF and citric acid, in a hydrous solution is well-known
in the art" and need not be disclosed in detail. Id. at 11-12 (citing Spec.
,r 33, MPEP § 2163(II)). This disclosed solution is itself a combination of
the listed alternative constituents above.
The Examiner responds that "[ w ]hile the fluid material in the
[S]pecification is open-ended, this merely indicates that the defined fluid
contains any of the claimed fluids, and could potentially include any other
materials," without indication that "any of the listed materials are mixed
with each other, let alone specifically choosing HF or citric acid solution to
mix with the other materials." Ans. 3. According to the Examiner, the
definition of "or" proffered by Appellant "is most commonly used in
sentential logic, rather than plain language," and "Merriam-Webster also
defines 'or' as 'used as a function word to indicate an alternative,"' which
definition is "more applicable to this case." Id. The Examiner continues
that"[ w ]hile the [S]pecification, due to its open-ended term 'includes,'
implies that the listed materials could include other materials, there is
nothing which indicates any particular mixture including more than one of
the listed components." Id.
Appellant replies that the Examiner states that the fluid can contain
the claim fluids and "any other materials," without explaining why the "any
5
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
other materials" could not implicitly include other of the alternative
materials explicitly listed in the Specification. Reply Br. 5. Indeed,
Appellant appears to argue that the listing of materials in the Specification
suggests the combination thereof, were one skilled in the art inclined to
augment a listed material. Id. Appellant lastly argues that the Examiner
failed to explain why defining "or" as "a function word to indicate an
alternative" is "more applicable to this case." Id.
Although we do not agree that the Specification suggests a
combination of the listed alternatives, the Specification indeed contemplates
a combination of the listed alternative materials with other materials by
employing the open ended term "includes." Thus, although not suggesting a
combination of one or more of the listed alternatives, we agree with
Appellant that the open ended nature of the list contemplates combining one
of the listed alternative with other materials, without precluding such "other
materials" being other of the alternate listed materials. For this reason, we
do not sustain Rejection I.
Rejections II, IV, and VI: Torii and Watanabe
The Examiner finds that Torii discloses, inter alia, a planarization pad
10, a pad conditioner having a rotatable plate 33, a nozzle opening 35 on a
lower surface of the rotatable plate, and a "fluid dispensing unit (fig 5,
elements 50, 52, 53) configured to selectively dispense a fluid material onto
the upper surface of the planarization pad [10] through the at least one
nozzle opening" 35 during a conditioning (or dressing) process. Final Act.
3--4. The Examiner finds that Torii does not disclose, inter alia, "the fluid
material comprising an acid when the fluid dispensing unit is operated
before or after a planarization process," but finds this disclosure in
6
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
Watanabe. Id. at 4 (citing Watanabe 9:5-9, 6:66). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to supply an acid to an upper surface of
Torii's planarization pad 10, as taught by Watanabe, "to achieve the
predictable result of dissolving and unclogging dried slurry." Id. at 4--5
(citing Watanabe 4:30-47).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner's reason for supplying
Watanabe's acid to the pad conditioner 33 of Torii lacks a rational basis.
Appeal Br. 13. According to Appellant, even if Torri's polishing liquid can
be considered a "slurry," Torii's conditioning unit 13 is separate from its
polishing unit 12, and the Examiner's proposed motivation to "achieve the
predictable result of dissolving and unclogging dried slurry" is not salient to
modifying Torii's conditioner's fluid dispensing unit. Id.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner's proposed modification
replaces Torii's pure water with acid, without explaining why one skilled in
the art would replace pure water with acid, particularly when the function of
Torii's conditioner 33 is using high pressure to remove debris (including
diamond particles) from its polishing cloth 10. Id. at 16 ( citing Torii ,r 18).
Further, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in determining that
Watanabe uses acid for a same purpose that Torii uses water, because
Watanabe's acid unclogs slurry within in its single-unit polisher/conditioner
23D, while Torii's pure water is pressurized water to remove diamond
particles external to its slurry delivery unit. Id.
The Examiner responds that T orii' s pad conditioner 13 includes
nozzles through which cleaning fluid is dispensed onto its polishing pad 10
7
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
to remove polishing liquid therefrom (Ans. 4--5 ( citing Torii ,r,r 9, 11, 42))2,
the polishing liquid being a "slurry" that is removed by Torii's conditioner
13 - and that Watanabe's acid "improves this by actually dissolving the
slurry for removal," such that "there is a clear motivation for using acid as
the cleaning liquid" (id. at. 5). According to the Examiner, although Torii
uses a separate dispenser for slurry, acid would still unclog Torii's slurry.
Id. Regarding the purpose of Torii's and Watanabe's fluid materials, the
Examiner counters that "both fluids are used to remove slurry from the
polishing pad, and are therefore directly relatable." Id.
The Examiner further concludes that one skilled in the art would
know how to select an acid compatible with the polishing pad being
conditioned. Ans. 6 (citing Watanabe 9:5-10 (stating that any composition
capable of dissolving the slurry material (manganese oxide) can be used as
the cleaning liquid)).
Appellant replies that, according to Torii's paragraph 42, the materials
ejected by the nozzles of the pad conditioner 33 are pure water and nitrogen,
and the Examiner proposes replacement of "two inert materials with a strong
acid (perchloric acid of Watanabe)" to remove slurry from Torii's polishing
pad 33. Reply Br. 7. Appellant further argues that one skilled in the art
2 Appellant argues that this finding relies on portions of T orii not set forth in
the Final Office Action, and should therefore be ignored. Reply Br. 7. This
argument is not persuasive, as no legal basis is provided for ignoring a new
finding. If Appellant is arguing that the new finding rises to the level of a
new ground of rejection, a request to seek review of the Examiner's failure
to designate a rejection as a new ground is petitionable to the Director under
3 7 C.F .R. § 1.181 "within two months from the entry of the examiner's
answer and before the filing of any reply brief." 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a).
Appellant does not appear to have filed such a Petition.
8
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
would understand that it is the high pressure jets of Torii' s pure water and
nitrogen that condition the polishing pad (i.e., remove diamond particles
therefrom), and Watanabe provides no indication that its acid would remove
diamond particles. Id. Appellant contends that the Examiner's position that
one skilled in the art would know how to select an acid compatible with the
polishing pad being conditioned (Ans. 6) is unreasonable. Id.
Considering the disclosures of Torii and Watanabe, Appellant has the
better argument, because the Examiner's reason for combining Torii with
Watanabe lacks a rational basis. Both Torii and Watanabe disclose devices
performing chemical mechanical polishing to planarize semiconductor
wafers. Torii ,r 4; Watanabe 1:6-10. Torii is directed to semiconductor
fabrication with separate wafer holding and pad conditioning heads 12, 13,
and is concerned with removing, from the polishing pad, all of (1) polishing
liquid, (2) particles ground from the semiconductor wafer during polishing,
and (3) particles of the dressing element (e.g., diamond particles) that come
off during dressing (conditioning) of the polishing pad. Id. ,r,r 7-9. Torii
therefore proposes an ejection nozzle provided on the dresser surface for
ejecting a fluid and gas "toward the polishing surface" in a manner that
removes elements (1)-(3) above from the polishing pad. Id. ,r,r 11-13. The
elements (1) - (3) that "have fallen into recesses in the polishing surface can
be blown away from the recesses by the gas contained in the mixed liquid
and, further, can be washed away by the cleaning liquid." Id. ,r 14. Torii
utilizes an arrangement of fluid flow holes in its dresser 33, utilizing
centrifugal forces caused by rotation of the dresser to achieve the desired
blowing away of elements (1 )- (3). Id. ,r,r 15-18, 41--45; Figs. 5, 6, 7 A, 7B.
9
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
Watanabe is directed to a single head for both polishing a wafer and
cleaning the polishing pad, and is concerned with (1) lowering a cost of the
slurry for polishing and (2) removal of the slurry after polishing. See
Watanabe Fig. 6, 1 :22-2:42. Watanabe proposes using a slurry containing
manganese oxide, and "carrying out the cleaning process by an acid such as
perchloric acid to which manganese oxide is soluble." Id. at 4:31-36.
Watanabe's acid cleans the polishing pad, and can additionally clean out any
dried slurry from the feed line during the cleaning process that occurs after
polishing and wafer removal. Id. at 4:36-47. According to Watanabe, a
"shower nozzle" of cleaning liquid is employed in the polishing head to
dissolve and remove slurry on the polishing pad 3B. Id. at 4:36-39; Fig. 6.
While both Torii's and Watanabe's cleaning fluids are relatable, in
that they clean a polishing pad, it is unclear how Watanabe's acid, which is
specific to dissolving manganese oxide slurry from a wafer holder and
polishing pad via a shower nozzle design, would be used in the fluid flow
holes of Torii's dresser 33, considering centrifugal forces caused by rotation
of the dresser, to achieve the desired blowing away of Torii's (1) polishing
liquid, (2) particles ground from the semiconductor wafer during polishing,
and (3) particles of the dressing element ( e.g., diamond particles) that come
off during dressing ( conditioning) of the polishing pad. It remains unclear to
us how Watanabe's acid, used to dissolve dried slurry within in and around
its polishing head, would operate in the device of Torii to accomplish Torii's
stated objectives, particularly given that Torii's slurry dispenser 15 is
separated from its dressing fluid dispensers 16, 35 (Torii, Figs. 4, 5).
Therefore, the Examiner's proffered reasoning, that one skilled in the art
would employ Watanabe's acid in Torii's device "to achieve the predictable
10
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
result of dissolving and unclogging dried slurry" (Final Act. 4--5) does not
provide a rational basis for the proposed combination. Further, the
Examiner has not provided any evidence that one skilled in the art would
know how to select an acid compatible with the polishing fluid, the polishing
pad being conditioned, and any residue left on the polishing pad by the
dresser (see Ans. 6), making this conclusion speculative.
For this reason, we do not sustain Rejections, II, IV, and VI, which are
based on this rationale for using Watanabe's acid in Torii's device.
Rejections III, V, and VII: Torii and Collier
Claim 21 recites a method comprising, inter alia, causing a pad
conditioner plate to rotate, dispensing an acid onto an upper surface of the
planarization pad through nozzle openings on a lower surface of the pad
conditioner plate "based on an operating mode," and when "the fluid
dispensing unit is operated during a planarization process performed by the
planarization device." Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds that Torii discloses, inter alia, rotating a plate 33
of a pad conditioner, and dispensing a fluid material onto an upper surface of
a planarization pad 10 through nozzle openings 35 disposed on a lower
surface of the plate 33 "based on an operating mode ('dressing process') of
the planarization device." Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that Torii's
fluid material does not comprise an acid when fluid is dispensed through
nozzle openings 35 during a planarization process, but finds that Collier
discloses a planarization method wherein the fluid material comprises "acid
( col 7, lines 60-65) when a fluid dispensing unit is operated during a
planarization process ... (col 3, lines 29-31)." Id. at 10. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
11
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
dispense an acid solution from Torii's pad conditioner 33 "during
planarization as taught by Collier ... to allow the pad to be cleaned with
minimal interruption of the polishing process as taught by Collier (col 5,
lines 20-28)." Id.
Regarding Rejection III, Appellant argues claims 21-23 as a group.
Appeal Br. 22. We select independent claim 21 as representative. Claims
22 and 23 stand or fall with claim 21.
Appellant first argues that Torii dresses its polishing pad only after the
polishing process is finished, and modifying Torii to condition its pad while
polishing "would change the principle of operation of Torii, which explicitly
describes conditioning after completion of the [polishing] process." Appeal
Br. 20-21.
The Examiner disagrees, responding that "since the modification
would constitute a simple changing of the timing of the pad conditioning
process, and would still achieve its purpose of keeping the pad in good
working condition." Ans. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's first argument, because it does
not explicitly define Torii's principle of operation for a determination of
whether such principle is accurate and would be changed. To the extent that
Appellant argues that the principle of Torii's operation is to polish a wafer
with the pad and then to condition the pad only afterward, this principle
appears too narrowly defined. Indeed, the principle of operation of a device
or system can generally - though often not accurately- be defined so
narrowly that any modification changes the principle, even when the
modification is suggested by the art as an improvement. The principle of
operation of T orii appears to more accurately be providing a dresser with an
12
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
ejection nozzle and cleaning fluid-gas mixture that can easily dress the
polishing pad to "remove a portion of a dressing element that has come off
the dressing element, a polishing liquid, and ground-off particles of a
workpiece material." Torii ,r,r 10-13. It is not apparent that simultaneous
polishing and dressing operations would change this principle of operation.
Appellant also argues that "there is no motivation to replace the pure
water dispensed by dresser 33 of Torii with an acid for reasons analogous to
those set forth above." Appeal Br. 22.
The Examiner responds that Collier discloses acid being
interchangeable with water for conditioning a polishing pad, "providing a
motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use acid in the
conditioner ofTorii." Ans. 7-8 (citing Collier 7:60-65).
We agree with the Examiner. Collier discloses that its conditioning
fluid can include "any fluid such as gases, water, or chemical-based liquids,"
and states that "the chemical may contain a base or an acid, which is
compatible with the material of the polishing pad." Collier 7:60-65. This
disclosure supports the Examiner's contention that Collier discloses gases,
water, and acids as known alternatives for use in conditioning a polishing
pad 12. Additionally, Collier discloses a spray element 16, at a location
separate from a location at which the wafer 14 is polished, that sprays
"pressurized fluid" onto its polishing pad 12 "to remove matter adhered to
the pad" during polishing, including particles from a slurry "and/or portions
of semiconductor topography 14 polished away by polishing system 10." Id.
at 7:33--41. Collier thus provides support for the Examiner's finding that
Collier discloses acid being interchangeable with water. Although Collier
does not specifically address removal of particles of the dressing element
13
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
that come off during dressing of the polishing pad, Appellant does not argue
that the combination would not also remove such residue.
For this reason, we sustain the rejection of claim 21. Claims 22 and
23 fall with claim 21. Appellant makes no argument that claim 24 would be
patentable over Torii, Cheng, Collier, and Oikawa, if claim 21 is not
patentable over Torii, Cheng, and Collier. We therefore sustain the rejection
of claim 24 for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 21. Similarly,
Appellant makes no argument that claim 25 would be patentable over Torii,
Cheng, Collier, and Kramer, if claim 21 is not patentable over Torii, Cheng,
and Collier. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 25 for the reasons
set forth above regarding claim 21.
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 9 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 10-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Torii, Cheng, and Watanabe.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Torii, Cheng, and Collier.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Torii, Cheng, Watanabe, and Kramer.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Torii, Cheng, Collier, and Kramer. Final Act. 12.
We REVERSE the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Torii, Cheng, Watanabe, and Fujita.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Torii, Cheng, Collier, and Oikawa.
14
Appeal2017---009826
Application 13/948, 799
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
15