Ex Parte Thakur et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201311460864 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/460,864 07/28/2006 Randhir Thakur APPM/9526.P1/FEP/LPCVD/AG 2714 44257 7590 07/29/2013 PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX 3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500 HOUSTON, TX 77056 EXAMINER FORD, NATHAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RANDHIR THAKUR, ARKADII SAMOILOV, and PER-OVE HANSSON ____________ Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CHUNG K. PAK, TERRY J. OWENS, and DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges. PAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The named inventors (hereinafter “Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s refusal to allow claims 16 through 18, 20 through 22, and 36, all of the claims pending in the above-identified application. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Applied Materials, Inc., 3050 Bowers Avenue, Santa Clara, California 95054. (See Appeal Brief filed September 8, 2011 (“App. Br.”) at 3.) App App appa has a trans subs trans subs repro Figu comp in po whic lock envir (Spe eal 2012-0 lication 11 The subj ratus comp robot disp fer region trate, and a fer region trate proce duced bel re 2 shows rising sub sitions 11 h is in com chambers onment (F c. 7-8 and 06421 /460,864 ST ect matter rising one osed ther and is ada substrate .” (Spec. 4 ssing appa ow: a cluster strate pro 4A, 114B, municatio 106 (i.e., actory Int 10-11, ¶¶ ATEMEN on appeal or more w ein[,] a fir pted to me processin , ¶ [0008] ratus and apparatus, cessing ch 114C, and n with a p 106A and erface) 10 [0031], [0 2 T OF TH is directed alls that f st support asure a pr g chamber .) Figure transfer re a substrat ambers 20 114D on lurality of 106B) and 4 having f 032], and E CASE to “a sub orm a tran chamber d operty of a in commu s 2 and 8, gion, resp e processin 1, 202, 20 a central t pods 105 an option actory inte [0036].) T strate proc sfer regio isposed w surface o nication w which illu ectively, a g apparat 3, and 204 ransfer ch via a pair al front-en rface robo he substra essing n which ithin the f the ith the strate such re us 100, mounted amber 110 of load d ts 108A-B te . Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 3 processing chamber 201, 202, 203, and 204 “may perform any number of processes, such as a PVD, CVD (e.g., dielectric CVD, MCVD, MOCVD, EPI), an ALD, a decoupled plasma nitridation (DPN), a rapid thermal processing (RTP), or a dry-etch process to form various device features on a surface of the substrate.” (Spec. 10, ¶ [0035].) Figures 2 and 8 also show the central transfer chamber 110 housing a robot 113 having a robot blade assembly 113A and either one or two support (e.g., metrology) chambers 211 or 800 that employ(s) ellipsometry, reflectometry, or x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy in the positions 214A and/or 214B for analyzing or measuring a property of a substrate or a thickness and/or a composition of a deposited film on the substrate. (Spec. 16-18 and 21-22, ¶¶ [0048]-[0053] and [0059]-[0061].) According to figure 8, a substrate support 704 and a lift assembly 720 (lift pins) for lifting the substrate support 704 are positioned within the transfer region 110C adjacent to one or more of the processing chambers 201, 202, 203, and/or 204, with a radiation source 711attached to a support 808 for emitting radiation through a transparent region 705 of a transfer chamber lid 110A to strike a surface of a substrate W positioned on the substrate support surface 707 of the substrate support 704. (Spec. 22, ¶ [0060].) The use of such analyzing or measuring device in the central transfer chamber 110 is said to overcome the problems associated with using off-line testing and analysis techniques for processing a substrate. (Spec. 3, ¶ [0006].) Details of the appealed subject matter are recited in illustrative claims 16 and 36 reproduced below: Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 4 16. A substrate processing apparatus, comprising: one or more walls forming a transfer chamber, the transfer chamber having a robot disposed therein, the robot having a robot blade assembly coupled thereto; a lid having a transparent window disposed over the transfer chamber; a support chamber disposed in the transfer chamber beneath the transparent window; a first substrate support positioned within the transfer chamber, the first substrate support having lift pins disposed therethrough, and an upper surface of the first substrate support adapted to be positioned at a height below the robot blade assembly; a measurement assembly positioned outside the transfer chamber and above the transparent window, the measurement assembly adapted to measure a property of a film on a substrate using XRD, XPS, reflectometer, or ellipsometer techniques; a first processing chamber in communication with the transfer chamber, wherein the first processing chamber comprises: a second substrate support positioned within a processing region of the first processing chamber; and a first radiation source adapted to deliver one or more UV wavelengths of light to the surface of the substrate positioned on the second substrate support; and a second processing chamber in communication with the transfer chamber, wherein the second processing chamber comprises: a third substrate support positioned within a processing region of the second processing chamber; a second radiation source adapted to deliver one or more UV wavelengths of light to the surface of the substrate positioned on the third substrate support; and a gas source adapted to deliver a cleaning gas to the processing region, wherein the cleaning gas contains hydrogen. Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 5 36. A substrate processing apparatus, comprising: one or more walls forming a transfer chamber, the transfer chamber having a robot disposed therein; a transfer chamber lid disposed on the one or more walls forming the transfer chamber, the transfer chamber lid having a transparent window; a first support chamber disposed within the transfer chamber, the first support chamber positioned substantially beneath the transparent window and comprising a substrate support disposed within the first support chamber; a measurement assembly positioned outside the transfer chamber and above the transparent window, the measurement assembly adapted to measure a property of a film on a substrate using XRD, XPS, reflectometer, or ellipsometer techniques; a substrate processing chamber in communication with the transfer chamber; and a preclean chamber adapted to prepare the surface of the substrate before performing a processing step in the substrate processing chamber. (App. Br. 20 and 22 (Claims App’x)). Appellants seek review of the following grounds of rejection maintained by the Examiner in the Answer mailed December 28, 2011 (“Ans.”): 1. Claims 16 through 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Japanese Patent Application Publication 2002-148011 published in the name of Chin et al. on May 22, 2002 (“Chin”)2, U.S. Patent 5,766,360 issued to Sato et al. on June 16, 1998 (“Sato”), U.S Patent Application Publication 2002/0129476 A1 published in the name of Eriguchi on September 19, 2002 (“Eriguchi”), and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0124964 A1 published in the name of Ahn on 2 Our reference to this Japanese prior art is to the corresponding English translation of record. Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 6 September 12, 2002 (“Ahn”); 2. Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chin, Sato, Eriguichi, Ahn, and U.S. Patent 6,306,780 B1 issued to Bourdelle et al. on October 23, 2001(“Bourdelle”); and 3. Claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chin, Sato, and Eriguchi. (App. Br. 9.) DISCUSSION I. Rejection (1) Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s finding that Chin discloses a cluster apparatus (a substrate processing apparatus) comprising one or more walls forming a conveying chamber 49 or 40 (corresponding to the transfer chamber recited in claim 1) housing a test chamber 57 (corresponding to the support chamber recited in claim 1) and a robot 45 having arms 41 and 42 and hand 43 (corresponding to the robot having a robot blade assembly recited in claim 1), a measurement assembly comprising, inter alia, a film thickness sensor 7 having measuring coil 11 and a distance measuring equipment 9 placed within the conveying chamber 49 or 40 or the test chamber 57 connected to a measuring device 8 located outside of the conveying chamber 49 or 40, and substrate processing chambers 51, 52, 53, and 54 in communication with the conveying chamber 49 or 40. (Compare Ans. 4 with App. Br. 10-13 and Reply Brief filed February 20, 2012 (“Reply Br.”) at 1-3; see also Chin, ¶¶ [0070]-[0073] and figs. 1, 2, 16, 17 and 18.) Nor have Appellants disputed the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 7 employ the substrate support, radiation source for delivering UV light, and gas source for delivering a cleaning gas taught by Sato as part of the substrate processing chambers of the substrate processing apparatus (cluster apparatus) of the type taught by Chin.3 (Compare Ans. 5 with App. Br. 10- 13 and Reply Br. 1-3.) Rather, Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge provided by the collective teachings of Chin, Eriguchi, Sato, and Ahn, would not have been led to employ a particular measurement assembly, such as a reflectometer, with a lid having a transparent window above a test or support chamber having a substrate support, as recited in claim 16, in the conveying or transfer chamber of the substrate processing apparatus of the type taught by Chin. (App. Br. 10-13 and Reply Br. 1-3.) Thus, the dispositive question raised is: Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the knowledge provided by the collective teachings of Chin, Eriguchi, Sato, and Ahn, would have been led to employ a measurement assembly, such as a reflectometer, together with a lid having a transparent window above a test or support chamber containing a substrate support having lift pins, as recited in claim 1, in the conveying or transfer chamber of the cluster apparatus 3 The Examiner also correctly found that Sato teaches that a substrate support, a radiation source for delivering UV light to a substrate on the substrate support, and a gas source for delivering a cleaning gas are conventional features of substrate processing chambers of a substrate processing apparatus, thus suggesting the employment of such conventional features as part of the substrate processing chambers of the substrate processing apparatus taught by Chin. (See also Sato, col. 5, l. 32 to col. 6, l. 25.) App App (sub we a appa discu As is arms havin whic the c conv thick eal 2012-0 lication 11 strate proc nswer this Figures ratus (a cl ssed supr apparent 41 and 42 g a thin m h is part th onveying eying cham ness of th 06421 /460,864 essing app question i 1, 2, 16, 17 uster appar a are repro from Figu and hand etal film n e conveyi chamber 4 ber 49 or e metal film aratus) of n the nega , and 18 o atus) havi duced bel res 1, 2, 16 43 (robot ear a film ng chambe 0 so that a 40 conne . (See al 8 the type ta tive. f Chin dep ng a conve ow: , 17, and blade asse thickness r 49, or n measurin cted to the so Chin, ¶ ught by C icting its ying cham 18, Chin’s mbly) pla sensor 7 i ear a film g device 8 sensor 7 t ¶[0070], [ hin ? On substrate p ber 40 or robot 45 h ces a subs n the test c thickness s outside of o determin 0071] and this record rocessing 49 aving trate hamber 5 ensor 7 in the e a [0087].) , 7 App App ellip meta durin and 2 havin subs toge durin Erigu refle proc In Fi emit trans on a cham light eal 2012-0 lication 11 Althoug someter as l film dep g the fabr illustrate g a quartz trate suppo ther with a g the man chi depic ctometer f essing clus gures 1 an ting light v parent reg wafer stag ber (corre source 8 f 06421 /460,864 h Chin doe its measu osited on a ication of s employin window 2 rt) as part reflectom ufacture o ting such o or measuri ter appara d 2, Erigu ia an exci ion) to irra e 21 (subs sponding or measur s not men rement ass substrate semicondu g an optic 3 (a trans of the sub eter, for th f semicon ptical mea ng a film tus are rep chi illustra ted light in diate the s trate supp to the test ing the int 9 tion using embly for in its test ctor devic al measur parent reg strate proc e purpose ductor dev surement thickness i roduced b tes using a let 26 thro urface of ort) locate chamber t ensity of li a reflectom measuring chamber o es, Eriguc ement cha ion) and a essing clu of measur ices. Figu (test) cham n the cont elow: n excited ugh the q a wafer 22 d in the op aught by C ght source eter or an the thick r conveyin hi in its Fi mber 5 ha wafer stag ster appar ing a film res 1 and ber and ext of a su light sourc uartz wind (substrate tical meas hin), a me via an inc ness of a g chambe gures 1 ving a lid e 21 (a atus, thickness 2 of bstrate e 7 ow 23 (a ) placed urement asuring ident r Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 10 measuring light inlet 24, and an optical detector 9 for measuring the intensity of reflected light via reflected measuring light outlet 25. (See also Eriguchi, ¶¶ [0064], [0067], and [0069].) Indeed, Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s finding that Eriguchi teaches “[u]sing a transfer robot to position a substrate atop a table (21) [(corresponding to the substrate support recited in claim 1)] disposed within a support [(test)] chamber so as to facilitate film [thickness] measurement (Fig. 2)” and using “an inspection assembly (5) having a transparent lid (23) and a reflectometer assembly (24) disposed thereon [0067]” for the film thickness measurement purpose. (Compare Ans. 4 with App. Br. 10-13 and Reply Br. 1-3.) Further, there is no dispute that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the substrate support plate having lift pins taught by Ahn as the substrate support (wafer stage) in the optical measurement chamber of Eriguchi and that Eriguchi’s reflectometer assembly permits “the accurate reading of extremely thin films [0030].”4 (Compare Ans. 4 and 5 with App. Br. 10-13 and Reply Br. 1-3.) Given the above teachings, we find no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with the 4 Eriguchi teaches that an ellipsometer is used conventionally for measuring a film thickness on the order of 10 nm during the fabrication of a semiconductor device, but cannot be used to measure a film thickness below 10nm with sufficiently high accuracy. (Eriguchi, ¶¶ [0001] and [0007].) Eriguchi then teaches that its optical modulation reflectance spectroscopy technique “allows the determination of the thickness of an extremely thin film or of the presence or absence thereof in a clustered device.” (Eriguich, ¶¶ [0009] and [0030].) This advantageous technique requires a substrate support within an optical measuring or testing chamber independent of a robot assembly for conveying a substrate as indicated supra. Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 11 knowledge of the collective teachings of Chin, Eriguchi, Sato, and Ahn, would have been led to employ a measurement assembly, such as a reflectometer, together with a lid having a transparent window above a test or support chamber containing a substrate support having lift pins, as recited in claim 1, in the conveying or transfer chamber of the substrate processing cluster apparatus of the type taught by Chin, with a reasonable expectation of successfully and accurately measuring thicknesses of very thin films deposited on substrates during the fabrication of a semiconductor device in the substrate processing cluster apparatus. In reaching this determination, we have considered Appellants’ arguments regarding Sato’s disclosure relating to an inspection chamber 58 for performing various analyses, including a thickness of a film, not being placed within the conveying or transfer chamber of its clustered substrate processing apparatus. (See App. Br. 10-11 and 15-16, together with Sato, figs. 1 and 2.) However, Sato’s disclosure, like Chin, only provides alternative locations for an inspection chamber 6 or 58 in Figures 1 and 2 for testing, inspecting, or measuring a thickness of a film deposited on a substrate during the fabrication of a semiconductor device in a clustered substrate processing apparatus. (Compare Sato, col, 4, ll. 32-36 and col. 5, ll. 39-42 and figs. 1 and 2, with Chin, figs. 2, 16, and 17.) Nowhere have Appellants identified any teachings in Sato or any other prior art reference relied upon by the Examiner to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led away from inspecting, measuring or testing within the conveying chamber of the substrate processing cluster apparatus taught by Chin. Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 12 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16 through 18, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chin, Sato, Eriguchi, and Ahn. II. Rejection (2) Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the features recited in claim 21 suggested by Bourdelle in the processing chambers of the substrate processing cluster apparatus suggested by Chin, Sato, Eriguchi, and Ahn. (Compare Ans. 6 with App. Br. 14 and Reply Br. 2-3.) Rather, Appellants merely reiterate the same arguments advanced in connection with the rejection of claims 16 through 18, 20, and 22 discussed supra. (App. Br. 14.) Accordingly, based on the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in the Answer and above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chin, Sato, Eriguchi, Ahn, and Bourdelle. III. Rejection (3) Appellants have not questioned the Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ a preclean chamber as part of the substrate processing cluster apparatus suggested by Chin, Sato and Eriguchi. (Compare Ans. 6-7 with App. Br. 15-16 and Reply Br. 2-3.) Rather, Appellants reiterate essentially the same arguments advanced in connection with the rejection of claims 16 through 18, 20, and 22 discussed supra. (App. Br. 15-16 and Reply Br. 2-3.) Appeal 2012-006421 Application 11/460,864 13 Accordingly, based on the findings of fact and conclusions set forth in the Answer and above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Chin, Sato, and Eriguchi. ORDER Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Answer, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED; and FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2010). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation