HITACHI KOKUSAI ELECTRIC INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 16, 2021

2021000326 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2021)

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.
15/421,162 01/31/2017 Yoshitomo HASHIMOTO HITACHI13-0001312US01 9534
3624 7590 11/16/2021
VOLPE KOENIG
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18TH FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
EXAMINER
MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2021 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YOSHITOMO HASHIMOTO and YOSHIRO HIROSE1
____________

Appeal 2021-000326
Application 15/421,162
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, CHRISTOPHER C. KENNEDY,
and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KENNEDY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3–18, and 21–23. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods of manufacturing
semiconductor devices. E.g., Spec. ¶ 2; Claim 1. Claim 1 is reproduced
below from pages 14–16 (Claims Appendix) of the Appeal Brief:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
KOKUSAI ELECTRIC CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-000326
Application 15/421,162

2
1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device,
comprising:
forming a laminated film having a desired composition on a
substrate,
wherein the forming the laminated film comprises alternately
laminating films, in which at least one of a concentration of
carbon and a concentration of nitrogen is different among the
films, by alternately performing at least two acts, n5 times
wherein n5 is an integer of one or more, the at least two acts being
selected from:
(a) performing a first cycle, n1 times wherein n1 is an integer of
one or more, the first cycle consisting essentially of:
supplying a first precursor gas to the substrate, supplying a
nitriding gas to the substrate, and supplying an oxidizing gas to
the substrate, in this order, the nitriding gas being thermally
activated under a non-plasma atmosphere and the oxidizing gas
being thermally activated under the non-plasma atmosphere;
(b) performing a second cycle, n2 times wherein n2 is an integer
of one or more, the second cycle consisting essentially of:
supplying the first precursor gas to the substrate, supplying an
oxidizing gas to the substrate, and supplying a nitriding gas to
the substrate, in this order, the oxidizing gas being thermally
activated under a non-plasma atmosphere and the nitriding gas
being thermally activated under the non-plasma atmosphere;
(c) performing a third cycle, n3 times wherein n3 is an integer of
one or more, the third cycle consisting essentially of:
supplying a second precursor gas to the substrate, supplying a
nitriding gas to the substrate, and supplying an oxidizing gas to
the substrate, in this order, the nitriding gas being thermally
activated under a non-plasma atmosphere and the oxidizing gas
being thermally activated under the non-plasma atmosphere; and
(d) performing a fourth cycle, n4 times wherein n4 is an integer
of one or more, the fourth cycle consisting essentially of:
supplying the second precursor gas to the substrate, supplying an
oxidizing gas to the substrate, and supplying a nitriding gas to
Appeal 2021-000326
Application 15/421,162

3
the substrate, in this order, the oxidizing gas being thermally
activated under a non-plasma atmosphere and the nitriding gas
being thermally activated under the non-plasma atmosphere,
wherein the first precursor gas contains two or more chemical
bonds between silicon and carbon in one molecule, the second
precursor gas contains four or more chemical bonds between
silicon and carbon in one molecule, the nitriding gas includes at
least one selected from the group of a NH3 gas, a N2H2 gas, a
N2H4 gas, a N3H8 gas, a CH3NH2 gas, a (CH3)2NH gas, a (CH3)3N
gas, a C2H5NH2 gas, a (C2H5)2NH gas, a (C2H5)3N gas, a
(CH3)HN2H2 gas, a (CH3)2N2H2 gas, and a (CH3)2N2(CH3)H gas,
and the oxidizing gas includes at least one selected from the
group of an O2 gas, a H2O gas, a NO gas, a N2O gas, a NO2 gas,
a CO gas, a CO2 gas, an O3 gas, a mixture of H2 gas and O2 gas,
and a mixture of H2 gas and O3 gas,
wherein elements constituting the first precursor gas are the same
as elements constituting the second precursor gas,
wherein a composition ratio of the elements constituting the first
precursor gas is different from a composition ratio of the
elements constituting the second precursor, and
wherein when performing the at least two acts selected from the
acts of (a) to (d), a number of the chemical bonds between silicon
and carbon contained in the second precursor gas is greater than
a number of the chemical bonds between silicon and carbon
contained in the first precursor gas between the at least two acts,
or an order of the act of supplying the nitriding gas to the
substrate and the act of supplying the oxidizing gas to the
substrate is different between the at least two acts.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3–18, and 21–23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hirose (US 2014/0287596 A1, published Sept. 25, 2014).
The Appellant argues the claims as a group. We select claim 1 as
Appeal 2021-000326
Application 15/421,162

4
representative, and the remaining claims on appeal will stand or fall with
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
After review of the cited evidence in the appeal record and the
opposing positions of the Appellant and the Examiner, we determine that the
Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection for reasons set forth below, in the Final
Action dated February 5, 2020, and in the Examiner’s Answer.
The Examiner’s discussion of claim 1 appears at pages 2–4 of the
Final Action. Of particular relevance to the issues raised by the Appellant in
this appeal, the Examiner finds that Hirose does not expressly disclose the
subject matter of the final “wherein” clause of claim 1. Final Act. 4. That
“wherein” clause requires that, “when performing the at least two acts
selected from the acts of (a) to (d),” either (1) the second precursor gas has
more silicon-carbon bonds than the first precursor gas, or (2) the order of
supplying the nitriding gas and the oxidizing gas is different in the two acts.
See Appeal Br. 16. We focus on alternative (1), i.e., the second precursor
gas has more silicon-carbon bonds than the first precursor gas.2
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds that Hirose teaches that its
precursor gases may be TCDMDS (having two silicon-carbon bonds) or
DCTMDS (having four silicon-carbon bonds), and that “therefore one would
select the gases in this order as a matter of selection of precursors
particularly wherein Hirose teaches applying different precursors in the same
process.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines that, “[t]o apply the

2 Because our resolution of issues concerning alternative (1) is dispositive of
this appeal, we decline to address the Appellant’s arguments concerning
alternative (2).
Appeal 2021-000326
Application 15/421,162

5
particular precursors as claimed in the claimed order, wherein Hirose teaches
the same precursors and the applicability of applying multiple precursors, is
not patentable without a showing of critic[ality] commensurate in scope to
the claim.” Id.
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argues that Hirose does not
expressly disclose the use of TCDMDS and DCTMDS in different cycles of
the same process, and that the BTCSM gas used in the example depicted in
Figure 7C has the same number of silicon-carbon bonds as TCDMDS,
thereby falling beyond the scope of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10.
In the Answer, the Examiner acknowledges that Hirose does not
expressly disclose the use of TCDMDS and DCTMDS in different cycles of
the same process, but the Examiner responds that:
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from Hirose’s
teachings that it is possible to apply any of the described
precursors in different process steps, the complete teachings are
not limited to any one or even two specific precursors . . . . These
skilled artisans can read and understand that different precursors,
particularly the ones specifically taught by Hirose, would be
applicable in the entirety of such a process.
Ans. 7. Consistent with that reasoning, the Examiner also explains that
Hirose “directs one to control the carbon content through manipulation of
the process conditions.” Id. at 8.
In the Reply Brief, the Appellant repeats that Hirose does not
explicitly disclose a single embodiment in which TCDMDS and DCTMDS
are used as the precursor gases in different cycles of the same process.
Reply Br. 2–3. The Appellant also argues that a person of ordinary skill
would not have replaced the BTCSM in Figure 7C of Hirose with DCTMDS
Appeal 2021-000326
Application 15/421,162

6
because BTCSM contains a methylene group whereas DCTMDS has a
methyl group, resulting in different properties. Id. at 4–5.
The Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible error in
the rejection. That Hirose fails to disclose a single embodiment in which
TCDMDS and DCTMDS are used as the precursor gases in different cycles
of the same process is not dispositive because the rejection is based on
obviousness, not anticipation.
There is no dispute that Hirose’s Figure 7C teaches an embodiment in
which different precursor gases (BTCSM and TCDMDS) are used in
different cycles of the same process. See Hirose Fig. 7C; see also
Hirose ¶ 165 (describing Fig. 7C). Consistent with the Examiner’s findings,
Hirose discloses a limited number of silanes for use as precursor gases, three
of which are BTCSM, TCDMDS, and DCTMDS. See Hirose ¶ 21. Hirose
discloses that the different precursor gases yield different results in terms of
the properties of the films that they produce, see, e.g., id. Figs. 14A–D, and
Hirose describes in detail how selection of the precursor gas affects
properties such as carbon content and etching resistance, with a specific
focus on BTCSM, TCDMDS, and DCTMDS, id. ¶¶ 118–122. Hirose goes
on to disclose:
[A] plurality of process recipes (programs describing process
order or processing conditions) used to form various thin films
as described above may be prepared for every type of precursor
gas, i.e., for different gas systems in advance to facilitate the
selection of types of precursor gases. An operator may properly
select an appropriate process recipe according to a desired gas
system or film composition to execute film formation processing.
Appeal 2021-000326
Application 15/421,162

7
Id. ¶ 122 (emphasis added). In other words, Hirose suggests selecting
appropriate precursor gases and “recipes” to achieve desired properties. See
id. ¶¶ 118–122.
Particularly in view of the limited number of preferred silane
precursor gases disclosed by Hirose, see id. ¶ 21, those disclosures
adequately support the Examiner’s determination that Hirose suggests
selection of TCDMDS and DCTMDS as the first and second precursor gases
in different cycles of the same process, notwithstanding the fact that Hirose
does not disclose an embodiment that anticipates the subject matter of
claim 1. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.”).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–18, 21–23 103 Hirose 1, 3–18, 21–23
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