Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

14281492 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
14/281,492 05/19/2014 Qunhua WANG 020647US/DIS PLAY/AKT/ES ON 4813
44257 7590 09/05/2017
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - Applied Materials
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
BOOTH, RICHARD A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2812
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QUNHUA WANG, LAI ZHAO, and SOO YOUNG1
Appeal 2016-005483
Application 14/281,492
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the Final Rejection of claims
1—8, 10-18, and 20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods for forming a silicon-
containing layer that may be used in thin film transistor (TFT) devices
(Spec. 12).
1 The Appeal Brief identifies Applied Materials, Incorporated is the real
party in interest. See App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005483
Application 14/281,492
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
positioning a substrate in a processing region of a process
chamber, the substrate having a surface with at least one buffer
layer formed thereon;
delivering a silicon-containing precursor and an activation
gas to the processing region, the activation gas comprising an
inert gas and a hydrogen-based gas, wherein the activation gas is
no more than 20 atomic % hydrogen, and wherein the ratio of the
activation gas to the silicon-containing precursor is greater than
about 1:20;
igniting the precursor and activation gas into a plasma;
depositing an amorphous silicon layer on the substrate;
dehydrogenating the amorphous silicon layer; and
annealing the dehydrogenated amorphous silicon layer to
form a polycrystalline silicon layer.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 1—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Oka (US 6,235,563 Bl; iss. May 22, 2001) in view of Park (US
2008/0135893 Al; publ. June 12, 2008).
2. Claims 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Oka in view of Park and Kasahara (US 6,656,779
Bl; iss. Dec. 2, 2003).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Oka teaches the subject matter of claim 1,
except for the activation gas comprising both an inert gas and a hydrogen-
based gas (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that Park teaches forming a
semiconductor layer in both an inert and hydrogen based gas. Id. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use an inert gas and
a hydrogen based gas to form a thin film transistor (TFT) layer as taught by
2
Appeal 2016-005483
Application 14/281,492
Park to form a thin film transistor layer in Oka. Id. With regard to the
limitation that the activation gas is no more than 20 atomic % hydrogen, and
wherein the ratio of the activation gas to the silicon-containing precursor is
greater than about 1:20, the Examiner finds that that amount of hydrogen gas
is a result-effective variable such that it would have been obvious to
determine through routine experimentation the optimum concentration based
upon a variety of factors including the desired thermal budget (Final Act. 4).
Appellants argue that neither Oka nor Park teaches or suggests use of
silicon-containing gas and an activation gas that comprises a hydrogen
containing gas and an inert gas wherein the activation gas is no more than 20
atomic % hydrogen (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that the Examiner has
not shown that the hydrogen content of the activation gas is recognized as a
result effective variable that achieves a recognized result (App. Br. 9).
Appellants contend that Oka provides no indication of any ranges for
concentrations of the diluent gases described in Oka, especially for
hydrogen. Id.
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’ argument of
non-obviousness. Although the Examiner finds that Oka’s disclosure of
hydrogen as a diluent or carrier gas in the abstract shows that the presence of
hydrogen is a result-effective variable, the Examiner has not shown the
concentration of hydrogen gas is a result effective variable. The Examiner
has not directed us to where Oka discloses that the concentration of the
hydrogen diluent gas affects Oka’s process in any particular manner. Oka’s
only disclosure regarding the concentration of hydrogen states that the
concentration of hydrogen in the amorphous silicon film contains about 10
atomic % hydrogen in the form of Si-H, H-Si-H and the like bonds (Oka col.
3
Appeal 2016-005483
Application 14/281,492
8,11. 36—38). However, the Examiner makes no findings regarding how the
concentration of hydrogen in the amorphous silicon film relates to the
concentration of hydrogen in the activation gas used to form the amorphous
film. The Examiner further determines that it would have been obvious to
minimize the amount of hydrogen in Oka’s activation gas because Oka
teaches to remove the hydrogen in a later step (Ans. 6). The Examiner has
not directed us to any guidance provided by Oka or Park regarding the
concentration of hydrogen in the activation gas. In other words, minimizing
the amount of hydrogen in Oka’s activation gas may still exceed the 20
atomic % required by claim 1. We are left to speculate as to suitable
concentrations of hydrogen in Oka’s activation gas; obviousness cannot be
based on what is unknown. In re Spormann, 363 F.2d 444, 448 (CCPA
1966).
On this record, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness. We are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed
REVERSED
4