Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2012

11470915 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2012)

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.
11/470,915 09/07/2006 LING CHEN APPM/005192.C4/CPI/COPPER 8789
44257 7590 05/22/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
TALBOT, BRIAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LING CHEN, HUA CHUNG, BARRY L. CHIN, and
HONG ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and KAREN
M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 15, and 17-29. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

2

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of processing a
substrate by pre-cleaning a dielectric layer on the substrate, positioning the
substrate in a chamber, the chamber having a chamber lid having an
expanding channel and with one or more gas conduits connected to a
sidewall of the expanding channel, introducing a process gas with a circular
(vortex, helical or spiral) flow pattern via the conduits providing a sweeping
action across an inner surface of the expanding channel wherein the circular
flow pattern dissipates while travelling downwardly, the flow continuing
toward and across a surface of the substrate in a laminar manner,
sequentially pulsing reagents into the gas during an atomic layer deposition
of a barrier layer, and depositing a seed layer on the barrier layer (see, e.g.,
Spec., paras. 0040-0042, and 0057, 0059, and 0063; Figs 1 and 6).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for processing a substrate, comprising:
precleaning a dielectric layer on a substrate;
positioning the substrate in a chamber, the chamber having a chamber
lid having an expanding channel, a bottom surface coupled with the
expanding channel, and one or more gas conduits coupled with the
expanding channel, wherein each of the one or more gas conduits is
connected to a sidewall of the expanding channel and is
positioned in a non-linear manner with respect to a center of the
expanding channel and to other gas conduits to introduce a process gas into
the expanding channel in a vortex, helix, or spiral flow pattern, and wherein
the bottom surface is tapered from the expanding channel to a peripheral
portion of the chamber lid and is sized and shaped to substantially cover the
substrate;
forming a barrier layer on the substrate by flowing the process gas
into the expanding channel in a manner to form the vortex, helix, or spiral
flow pattern which provides a sweeping action across an inner surface of the
expanding channel, the vortex, helix, or spiral flow pattern being dissipated
while traveling through the expanding channel to a downwardly gas flow
Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

3
toward and across a surface of the substrate in a laminar manner, and
sequentially pulsing reagents into the gas during an atomic layer deposition,
wherein the atomic layer deposition comprises introducing one or more
pulses of a metal-containing precursor and a nitrogen-containing precursor
to the expanding channel; and
depositing a seed layer on the barrier layer.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Lopatin U.S. 6,368,954 B1 Apr. 9, 2002
Grant U.S. 6,428,847 B1 Aug. 2, 2002
Tarutani U.S. 6,179,920 B1 Jan. 30, 2001
Okayama U.S. 6,334,983 B1 Jan. 1, 2002
Paranjpe U.S. 2003/0134038 A1 Jul. 17, 2003
Yoon U.S. 2008/0268636 A1 Oct. 30, 2008
Raaijmakers U.S. 6,383,330 B11 May 7, 2002
Ikeda U.S. 6,143,077 Nov. 7, 2000

Claims 1, 3-7, 15, and 17-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lopatin in combination with Tarutani, Okayama,
Paranjpe, Yoon, and Grant. Claims 1, 3-7, 15, and 17-29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lopatin in combination
with Raaijmakers, Ikeda, Paranjpe, Yoon, and Grant.
We reverse the stated rejections. Our reasoning follows.
Lopatin discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor
interconnect structure wherein a barrier layer is formed using atomic layer
deposition techniques in a vacuum chamber wherein gaseous reactants are
introduced using a multiplicity of process cycles forming monolayers (col. 3,
ll.18-39 and col. 4, l. 37 –col. 5, l. 18).

1 See Communication (Form PTO-90C) mailed July 07, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

4
Tarutani discloses a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) apparatus and
process wherein a source gas (gas supply tube inlet 1a) and a reactive gas
(gas supply tube inlet 2a) are mixed in a downwardly diverging mixing
space above a diffusion plate 7, which plate 7 separates the upper diverging
mixing space from the lower reactor space 3a of reactor 3 (Figs. 1-4).
Okayama discloses an etching processing system wherein a
processing gas is discharged through holes 128a of an upper electrode
member 128, wherein removable, insulating members 144 with tapered
through holes are fitted in the gas discharge holes to reduce or avoid plasma
damage to the gas discharge holes and to prolong the life of the upper
electrode (col. 2, l.10 – col. 5, l. 50; Fig. 1). Shapes of the insulating
members 144, shapes of the holes 128a, and alternative embodiments of the
etching system are illustrated in drawing Figures 2-7.
Grant discloses a vortex based CVD reactor wherein gases are
introduced to the reactor with a downwardly circular flow pattern along the
inner converging wall of the reactor chamber and then up through the central
region of the reaction chamber in an inner and upward vortex flow pattern
for removal via an upper exhaust port 26. Grant discloses reactor sidewall
14 which reduces in diameter in a direction toward the wafer substrate 50
(Figs 2 and 5). The injector tubes (22a-n) of Grant are connected and pass
through top wall 18, not reactor sidewall 14.
Raaijmakers discloses a wafer processing chamber having a quartz
interior surface with upper and lower convex interior walls for operations
such as CVD, annealing, and etching (col. 2, l. 55 –col. 3, l. 20 and col. 5, ll.
15-34; Figs 1-4). Raaijmakers’ curved walls can be joined by a cylindrical
wall at their side edges (abstract; col. 3, ll. 21-36). In another embodiment
Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

5
of Raaijmakers, the upper and lower walls have a dome-shaped
configuration (col. 3, ll. 37-48). Process gases enter the reactor horizontally
through a side inlet slot 64 and optionally via a top axial inlet 70
(Raaijmakers, col. 10, ll. 20-53; Fig. 3). Raaijmakers does not disclose an
atomic layer deposition process with the provision of vortex, helix or spiral
process gas flow by using an arrangement of gas conduits connected to a
sidewall of an expanding channel with dissipation of the gas flow pattern as
the gas passes downwardly through an expanding channel and across a
substrate in laminar manner.
Ikeda discloses a CVD apparatus with a diverging gas delivery guide
44 extending downward from an upper central axial gas delivery port 443
(col. 7, ll. 34-46; Fig. 11). Ikeda does not disclose atomic layer deposition
using a gas inlet arrangement providing for vortex, helix, or spiral process
gas flow by using an arrangement of gas conduits connected to a sidewall of
an expanding channel with dissipation of the gas flow pattern as the gas
passes downwardly through an expanding channel and across a substrate in
laminar manner.
Concerning the claimed method, the Examiner acknowledges that
Lopatin does not disclose “the claimed chamber having a lid, expanding
channel, tapered bottom and gas conduits” (Ans. 4). In this regard, the
Examiner has not established that Lopatin teaches a method including a
process gas flow pattern and using a particular apparatus in a manner
corresponding to the methods recited in independent claims 1 and/or 15.
Rather, the Examiner relies on the further teachings of certain other
references, including Tarutani, Okayama, and Grant (first stated rejection) or
Raaijmaakers, Ikeda, and Grant (second stated rejection) to purportedly fill
Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

6
the gaps in the teachings of Lopatin concerning at least some of the
aforementioned claimed process flow patterns and apparatuses that are
employed in the claimed method (Ans. 3-10).2
However, both of the stated rejections do not establish that the
combined teachings of the applied references would have suggested the
claimed subject matter.3
In particular and concerning each of the stated rejections, the
Examiner relies on Grant for allegedly teaching a vortex flow pattern with
gas conduits connected to sidewalls, as claimed (Ans. 6 and 10). However,
Grant discloses a downwardly converging reactor. Grant does not teach or
suggest connecting gas conduits to a sidewall of a downwardly expanding
channel to introduce process gas into the channel in a vortex, helix, or spiral
flow pattern with dissipation of the gas flow pattern as the gas passes
downwardly through the expanding channel and across a substrate in
laminar manner, as required by the method of either claim 1 or claim 15.
Further concerning this matter and the first stated rejection, the
Examiner, in responding to some of Appellants’ arguments, seems to take
the position that Grant would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art that connecting the supply tubes to the sidewalls of Grant’s reactor would
have been an obvious modification of Grant and, consequently, the
combined teachings of Grant and Tarutani would have suggested a

2 The Examiner relies on Paranjpe and Yoon for allegedly teaching or
suggesting modifications of Lopatin with respect to employing other features
that delimit the claimed process (Ans. 5, 6, 9, and 10).
3 It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of non-
patentability resides with the Examiner. See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

7
modification of Lopatin that would have resulted in the use of an expanding
channel [such as employed above the diffusion element 7 of Tarutani]
together with the provision of gas inlets in the sidewall [of such a
downwardly expanding channel] to provide a vortex flow pattern (Ans. 11;
see also Ans. 6 and 7). According to the Examiner, the showerhead
(presumably the diffusion element 7) of Tarutani would have been
recognized as being unnecessary and presumptively removed when Tarutani
is combined with Grant (Ans. 12)
As argued by Appellants, however, Grant does not reasonably
disclose that the gas conduits (tubes 22a-22n) are connected to the sidewall
14 (App. Br. 13; Grant, Figs. 2 and5). Even if we could construe Grant as
suggesting the use of gas conduits connected to the sidewall of Grant’s
reactor, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has furnished a reasonable
explanation that conveys why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified the atomic layer deposition process of Lopatin by using a
disassembled reactor of Tarutani (diffusion element 7 removed) and by
further modifying the reactor inlets to provide a vortex, helix, or spiral flow
in light of the disparate teachings of Grant such that a method including
atomic layer deposition and a process gas inlet and the particular process gas
flow arrangement, as claimed, would have resulted. In this regard, a review
of the applied references in light of Appellants’ arguments (App Br. 10-15;
Reply Br. 2-4) against the Examiner’s proposed assembly of parts of the
disparate applied references for use in a modified method of Lopatin make it
plain that impermissible hindsight reasoning is at work in the first stated
rejection.
Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

8
Similarly, we agree with Appellants that the combination of Grant
with Raaijmakers and Ikeda, as suggesting a modification to Lopatin that
would have resulted in the claimed method fares no better for reasons argued
by Appellants (App. Br. 16-19). In this regard, Grant does not teach
connecting the gas conduits to the reactor expanding channel sidewall as
claimed by Appellants. The Examiner acknowledges that the combination
of Lopatin, Raaijmakers, Ikeda, Paranjpe, and Yoon do not suggest the gas
flow pattern employed in the claimed method. Thus, their combination does
not suggest the claimed method.
Moreover, even if Grant would have suggested such a gas conduit
connection, for the purposes of Grant, as seemingly maintained by the
Examiner (Ans. 10), the Examiner has not reasonably explained how that
would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lopatin to employ
parts of each of the several other applied references to arrive at the claimed
subject matter. As we noted above, Raaijmakers and Ikeda are not drawn to
atomic layer deposition and do not employ a complex downward circular
flow pattern that dissipates to laminar flow as claimed by Appellants.
Rejections based on § 103(a) must rest on a factual basis with these
facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
Here, we find no direction other than the use of impermissible
hindsight to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the evidence and
argument furnished on this appeal record.
It follows that we reverse both of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections.

Appeal 2010-011823
Application 11/470,915

9

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.

REVERSED

tc