YE, Yan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 6, 2019

14095914 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2019)

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.
14/095,914 12/03/2013 Yan YE 11924USC2/
DISPLAY/MET/OXI
2542
44257 7590 12/06/2019
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1794
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2019 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 YAN YE
____________________

Appeal 2018-006864
Application 14/095,914
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before N. WHITNEY WILSON, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
October 25, 2017 decision finally rejecting claims 1–92 (“Final Act.”). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real
party in interest (Appeal Br. 3).
2 Claims 10–15 have been withdrawn from consideration (Final Act. 1).
Appeal 2018-006864
Application 14/095,914

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a deposition method comprising
positioning a substrate in a sputtering chamber, where the sputtering
chamber comprising a zinc-containing target, delivering a sputtering gas to
the sputtering chamber, activating the sputtering gas, and depositing an
amorphous oxynitride semiconductor layer on a substrate (Appeal Br. 5).
The semiconductor layer comprises a ternary compound of zinc, oxygen,
and nitrogen, and has a transmittance of less than 80 percent (id.). Details of
the claimed structure are set forth in representative claim 1, which is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A deposition method comprising:
positioning a substrate in a sputtering chamber, the
sputtering chamber comprising a zinc-containing target;
delivering a sputtering gas to the sputtering chamber;
activating the sputtering gas; and
depositing an amorphous oxynitride semiconductor layer
on a substrate, the semiconductor layer comprising a ternary
compound of zinc, oxygen and nitrogen, wherein the
semiconductor layer has a transmittance of less than 80 percent.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Zhejang.3

3 University of Zhejang, CN 1461044 A, published December 10, 2003.
Appellant, the Examiner, and the Board rely on the English translation of
record.
Appeal 2018-006864
Application 14/095,914

3
2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zhejang in view of Strandjord.4
3. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhejang in view of Zhu-Ge.5

DISCUSSION
Appellant does not separately argue any claim or rejection (see,
Appeal Br. 8–9). Accordingly, our analysis will focus on the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1 over Zhejang. The Examiner’s findings underlying this
rejection are set forth at pages 2–3 of the Final Action.
The Examiner finds that Zhejang teaches a deposition method
comprising (1) positioning a substrate in a sputtering chamber which
contains a zinc-containing target, (2) delivering a sputtering gas to the
sputtering chamber; (3) activating the sputtering gas, and (4) depositing an
oxynitride semiconductor layer — a ternary compound of zinc, oxygen, and
nitrogen — on the substrate (Final Act. 2). The Examiner further finds that
Zhejang does not disclose that the semiconductor layer formed by the
process is amorphous, or that the layer has a transmittance of less than 80%.
The Examiner determines that Zhejang teaches that flowrates and
ratios of the various gases especially nitrogen and oxygen and argon can be
changed such that a high level of nitrogen is achieved “which leads to
amorphous production of zinc oxynitride” because those conditions would

4 Strandjord et al., US 5,328,813, issued July 12, 1994.
5 Zhu-Ge et al., “Electrical and optical of Al-N co-doped p-type zinc oxide
films,” Journal of Crystal Growth, Vol. 268, pp. 163–168 (2004).
Appeal 2018-006864
Application 14/095,914

4
be similar to the conditions disclosed in the Specification (Final Act. 3). The
Examiner relies on Zhejang’s disclosure that the oxygen to argon ratio can
range from 0:1 to 1:1 and the nitrogen to argon ratio can range from 1:10 to
1:1 (Zhejang, p. 1). The Examiner finds that the foregoing disclosure
suggests Zhejang teaches that the nitrogen to oxygen ratio can be 1:0.5, and
that the use of such a gaseous mixture in Zhejang’s process would produce
an amorphous film with a transmittance of less than 80% (Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues that Zhejang does not specifically disclose the use of
a nitrogen to oxygen ratio of 1:0.5, and argues at best that Zhejang discloses
a broad nitrogen to oxygen ratio from 1:0 to 1:1, but does not disclose a
specific ratio of 1:0.5 (Appeal Br. 6). The Examiner does not dispute that
Zhejang does not explicitly teach a nitrogen to oxygen ratio of 1:0.5, but
argues that Zhejang’s ratio “can be 1:0.5 which would be equivalent to
Appellant’s ratio of 2:1 which is discussed in Appellant’s specification”
(Ans. 6). The Examiner determines that because Zhejang “teach[es] a ratio
range that overlaps Appellant’s ratio range the semiconductor film would be
amorphous and have a transmittance less that 80 percent” (id.). The
Examiner also finds that Appellant argues that a low amount of oxygen is
needed to produce an amorphous film, and Zhejang teaches that the relative
amount of oxygen can be as low as zero (Ans. 6–7).
However, the claim does not recite a specific nitrogen to oxygen ratio,
but instead recites that the claimed process includes a step of depositing an
amorphous oxynitride semiconductor layer on a substrate, where the layer
has a transmittance of less than 80%. The Examiner has not made any
findings or provided a reasoned explanation of why a person of skill in the
art would have used a nitrogen to oxygen ratio combined with other
Appeal 2018-006864
Application 14/095,914

5
operating conditions (such as flow rates (Appeal Br. 6–7)) which would
produce the claimed transmittance and amorphous structure for the
oxynitride semiconductor layer. Nor has the Examiner explained why a
person of skill in the art would have been motivated to configure Zhejang’s
process to achieve those properties.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of dependent claims 2–9.

CONCLUSION

In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6 103(a) Zhejang 1–6
7 103(a) Zhejang,
Strandjord
7
8, 9 103(a) Zhejang, Zhu-Ge 8, 9
Overall
Outcome
1–9

REVERSED