Ex Parte Usami et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 201311156735 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013) Copy Citation 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formula (1) below; 1 The Real Party-In-Interest is NEC Electronics Corporation. 2 Claims 22, 24, 25, and 28 have been withdrawn and therefore are not addressed in this Opinion.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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation