Ex Parte Usami et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11156735 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TATSUYA USAMI, SADAYUKI OHNISHI,
MASAYUKI HIROI, and AKIRA MATSUMOTO
____________________

Appeal 2010-009179
Application 11/156,735
Technology Center 2800
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009179
Application 11/156,735

2
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-9, 11-21, 23, 26, 27, and 29.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method of
fabricating a semiconductor device. Spec. 1:10-11.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of fabricating a semiconductor device comprising:
forming a first interconnect on a semiconductor substrate;
forming a film-to-be-etched on said first interconnect;
forming a via hole in said film-to-be etched;
forming an organic film on said film-to-be-etched;
forming, on said organic film, an intermediate film by a two
frequency chemical vapor deposition process, at a temperature of
100°C or above to 300°C or below, using a compound expressed by
the general formula (1) below;

1 The Real Party-In-Interest is NEC Electronics Corporation.
2 Claims 22, 24, 25, and 28 have been withdrawn and therefore are not
addressed in this Opinion. App. Br. 4.
App
App

Kado
Argo
Ko
Bjor
Yam
Cui
eal 2010-0
lication 11
fo
intermed
et
said inte
film-to-b
fo
intercon
[Chemic
w
carbon-c
where al

mura
s
kman
aguchi
09179
/156,735
rming a re
iate film;
ching said
rmediate f
e etched;
rming said
nect by fil
al Formul
here each
ontaining
l of Rl to R
sist film h
film-to-be
ilm and sa
and
second in
ling said tr
a 1]
of R1 , R2
group or a
4 are hydr
Re
US 5,3
US 5,4
US 200
US 200
US 200
US 7,2
3
aving a pa
-etched by
id resist fi
terconnec
ench and s
, R3 and R4
hydrogen
ogen atom
ferences
42,481
38,023
4/006765
5/0023694
5/010374
76,441 B1
ttern for an
utilizing
lm to form
t connecte
aid via ho
independ
atom, exc
s.
Aug
Aug
8 A1
A1
8 A1

Apr
Feb
Ma
Oct
opening
said organ
a trench i
d to said f
le with me
ently expr
luding the
. 30, 1994
. 1, 1995
. 8, 2004
. 3, 2005
y 19, 2005
. 2, 2007
on said
ic film,
n said
irst
tal:

esses a
case

Appeal 2010-009179
Application 11/156,735

4

Rejections
Claims 1-9, 11-21, 23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Office Action mailed April 14, 2009, p. 2.3
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-15, 18-21, 23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bjorkman and Argos. Ans. 4-9.
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bjorkman, Argos, and Kadomura. Ans. 9-10.
Claims 7, 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bjorkman, Argos, and Ko. Ans. 10-11.
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bjorkman, Argos, and Cui. Ans.
14-15.
Claims 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bjorkman, Argos, and Yamaguchi. Ans. 11-12.

ISSUE 1
Appellants argue the Specification has “sufficient disclosure in order
to satisfy the written description requirement.” App. Br. 13. Appellants

3 The Examiner has described the 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph rejection
as being asserted for failure to comply with the enablement requirement.
Ans. 3. However, in the “Response to Arguments” section, the Examiner
finds Appellants’ Specification does not provide sufficient support to satisfy
the written description requirement. Ans. 12. Moreover, the Examiner did
not designate the enablement rejection as a new ground of rejection and we
therefore treat the identification by the Examiner of the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112 as a misstatement or error and proceed with analysis with
respect to the written description requirement.
Appeal 2010-009179
Application 11/156,735

5
argue the “organic film” recited in claim 1 is used for forming the trench
after the via has already been formed and that the recited organic film (in
combination with the recited intermediate and resist films) is formed
similarly to the three-layered resist film that may be used to form the via.
App. Br. 12-13.
Issue: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-9, 11-21, 23, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written
description requirement?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
contention.
The Examiner finds “a via is formed in said film-to-be-etched only
after the organic film . . . [is] formed.” Ans. 3. The Examiner responds to
Appellants’ argument that film 230 is the recited organic film by stating that
“none of layers 230, 232 and 234, which make up the three-layered resist
film 235, is disclosed by the specification or Fig. 3H to be an organic film.”
Ans. 12.
Appellants reiterate that their Specification describes that film 230,
which is a part of three-layered resist film 235, “is formed ‘similarly to the
case of three-layered resist film 225’ (which includes organic film 220).”
Reply 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the cited
disclosure in Appellants’ Specification to mean that film 230 could be
formed of an organic material, such as Novolac, which is described with
Appeal 2010-009179
Application 11/156,735

6
respect to film 220. Spec. 11:20-26. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-21, 23, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph for failing to comply with the written description
requirement.

ISSUE 2
Appellants assert the combination of Bjorkman and Argos does not
teach or suggest forming an organic film, an intermediate film, and a resist
film on top of a film-to-be-etched, and subsequently using those three films
to etch a trench into the film-to-be-etched, as recited in independent claim
1.App. Br. 18; 19. Specifically, Appellants argue “the applicability of
BJORKMAN is predicated on layer 14, and only layer 14, responding [sic]
to the ‘film-to-be-etched.’” Reply 2 (citing Ans. 4).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bjorkman
and Argos teaches or suggests forming an organic film, an intermediate film,
and a resist film, and “etching said film-to-be-etched by utilizing said
organic film, said intermediate film and said resist film to form a trench in
said film-to-be[-]etched,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly
recited in independent claim 26?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’
contention.
The Examiner finds the claims do not recite a three-layered resist film
or, more specifically, that the claims “do not specify that these layers are
Appeal 2010-009179
Application 11/156,735

7
constituents of a three-layered resist film.” Ans. 12. Therefore, the Examiner
finds Bjorkman is still an applicable reference.
While we agree Appellants have not claimed the three layers (the
organic film, the intermediate film, and the resist film) must constitute a
three-layered resist film, Appellants have explicitly claimed three
independent films, which are all formed on top of the recited “film-to-be-
etched.” Thus, we are convinced by Appellants’ argument that Bjorkman
does not disclose forming three layers on top of a film-to-be-etched, where
the three layers are used to etch a via and a trench. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). For the same reason as discussed above, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-9, 12-21, 23, 26, 27, and 29 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-21,
23, 26, 27, and 29 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj