14630864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

Ex Parte LEE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 31, 2018

14630864 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/630,864 02/25/2015 26530 7590 01/03/2019 LADAS & PARRY LLP 224 SOUTH MICHIGAN A VENUE SUITE 1600 CHICAGO, IL 60604 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kyungeun LEE 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. CU-71821 LKT 3191 EXAMINER MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2019 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): ChicagoUSPTO@ladas.net PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KYUNGEUN LEE, DOOHYUN LA, JUNSEOK CHANG, BYUNGCHUL CHO, DONGHO RYU, JUHW AN PARK, and YOUNGJUN KIM Appeal 2018-001136 Application 14/630,864 Technology Center 1700 Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from an Examiner's decision finally rejecting claim 4 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 (AIA) 1 Finally rejected claims 1, 3, and 5-20 were cancelled in an Amendment dated June 19, 2017 ("Amendment"). The Examiner entered the Amendment in an Advisory Action dated June 29, 2017. Appeal 2018-001136 Application 14/630,864 as unpatentable over Clark2 in view of Balseanu et al. 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Claim 4 is reproduced below from the Amendment dated June 19, 2017. The limitation at issue is italicized. 4. A method of fabricating a nitride film, in which a nitride film having compressive stress is formed on a substrate by performing a unit cycle at least one time, the unit cycle compnsmg: a first step of providing a source gas on the substrate to adsorb at least a part of the source gas on the substrate; a second step of providing a first purge gas on the substrate; a third step of forming a unit deposition film on the substrate by providing the substrate with a stress controlling gas comprising a nitrogen gas (N2) and a reaction gas containing nitrogen components (N) other than the nitrogen gas (N2) in a plasma state; and a fourth step of providing a second purge gas on the substrate, wherein as compressive stress required for the nitride film is increased, the amount of nitrogen gas (N2) provided on the substrate in the third step is increased, wherein the stress controlling gas comprises a mixture gas of a nitrogen gas (N2) and an inert gas, wherein as the compressive stress required for the nitride film is increased in the third step, a relative ratio of the nitrogen gas (N2) to the inert gas provided on the substrate is increased. B. DISCUSSION 2 US 2008/0242116 Al, published October 2, 2008 ("Clark"). 3 US 2006/0105106 Al, published May 18, 2006 ("Balseanu"). 2 Appeal 2018-001136 Application 14/630,864 The Examiner finds Clark discloses a method of fabricating a silicon nitride film on a substrate by performing a unit cycle at least one time, wherein the silicon nitride film may have compressive stress. Final Act. 2- 3. 4 The Examiner finds that the unit cycle disclosed in Clark comprises the steps recited in claim 4, with the exception that the third step does not include providing a stress controlling gas comprising nitrogen gas with the reaction gas (i.e., ammonia (Clark ,r 54)) in the plasma state. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds: Balseanu discloses that to form a compressive stressed silicon nitride film [O 107], the reaction gas may be a combination of ammonia and nitrogen gas, wherein the nitrogen gas may be a diluent [O 109] and the stress value increases with increasing nitrogen gas flow rate [0064J_l5J Final Act. 3 ( emphasis added). The Examiner also finds that Balseanu discloses that an inert gas, such as argon, may be used with the nitrogen gas and concludes that "it would have been obvious to control the flow rate of diluent nitrogen gas added to the process of Clark in order to control the amount of compressive stress in the SiN film." Final Act. 3--4. "By increasing the nitrogen gas flow rate," the Examiner finds that "the ratio of nitrogen gas to inert gas would also increase." Final Act. 4. The Appellants do not direct us to any error in the Examiner's conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art "to include the diluent nitrogen gas of Balseanu with the reaction gas ( e.g. ammonia) of Clark" (Final Act. 3). Rather, the Appellants argue that 4 Final Office Action dated June 10, 2016. 5 Balseanu paragraph 64 discusses tensile stress. 3 Appeal 2018-001136 Application 14/630,864 Balseanu fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the following limitation recited in claim 4: "as the compressive stress required for the nitride film is increased in the third step, a relative ratio of the nitrogen gas (N2) to the inert gas provided on the substrate is increased." App. Br. 5. 6 In that regard, the Appellants argue that Balseanu discloses the opposite, i.e., "that 'increasing the ratio of Ar to N2 results in higher compressive stress values .... "' App. Br. 6 (citing Balseanu ,r 111, Table III and Fig. 19A). The Examiner concludes that the following clause recited in the claim limitation at issue is an optional clause: "' [ w ]herein as compressive stress required for the nitride film is increased."' Ans. 3. 7 That is, the limitation at issue "falls short of making any actual requirement that the compressive stress required for the film is actually increased." Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that claim 4 "provides direction for WHEN the compressive stress required is increased, but the language is open for when the compressive stress required for the nitride film is NOT increased as well. As such, the words are an optional limitation." Ans. 4; see also Advisory Action dated October 25, 2016, at 2 ( concluding that there is no claim limitation requiring the compressive stress of the nitride film to be increased); Advisory Action dated May 15, 2017 (concluding that the claimed steps do not require an increase in compressive stress); Advisory Action dated June 29, 2017 ( concluding that "claim 4 does not actually require a change in the compressive stress"). 6 Supplemental Appeal Brief dated May 2, 2017. 7 Examiner's Answer dated September 12, 2017. 4 Appeal 2018-001136 Application 14/630,864 The Examiner's interpretation of the claim limitation at issue is supported by the record. Turning to the Specification, 8 the Appellants disclose: [T]he present inventors confirmed that the higher the relative ratio of the nitrogen gas (N2) to the inert gas in the stress controlling gas in the third step [] is, the larger the compressive stress of the finally implemented nitride film becomes, and the higher the relative ratio of the inert gas to the nitrogen gas (N2) in the stress controlling gas in the third step [] is, the smaller the compressive stress of the finally implemented nitride film becomes. Accordingly, when the stress controlling gas includes a nitrogen gas (N2) and an inert gas, it is possible to expect an effect in that the compressive stress of the nitride film may be easily and precisely controlled by controlling a relative ratio of the nitrogen gas (N2) to the inert gas in the third step []. Spec. 15-16 (emphasis added). Based on the Appellants' disclosure, we find that the limitation at issue merely recites a relationship between compressive stress and the N2/inert gas ratio, wherein the compressive stress of the nitride film may be increased by increasing the N2/inert gas ratio. See Reply Br. 3 (contending that "the specification clearly indicate[ s] the causal relationship between the relative ratio of the nitrogen gas (N2) to the inert gas in the third step and the compressive stress of the nitride film"). 9 Claim 4, however, does not positively recite a step of increasing the compressive stress of the nitride film by increasing the N2/inert gas ratio. Therefore, we conclude that the 8 See In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551 (CCPA 1976) ("claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification"). 9 Reply Brief dated November 13, 2017. 5 Appeal 2018-001136 Application 14/630,864 limitation at issue does not further limit the claimed method by imposing an additional method step. In view of our interpretation of claim 4, the Appellants' argument that Balseanu fails to teach, disclose, or suggest the limitation at issue is not persuasive of reversible error. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 4 is sustained. C. DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6