Takahiro Kishioka et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021001814 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

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. 11/992,595 03/26/2008 Takahiro Kishioka 136492 9518 25944 7590 03/18/2022 OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320-4850 EXAMINER HAMILTON, CYNTHIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1737 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 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): OfficeAction25944@oliff.com jarmstrong@oliff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ___________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________ Ex parte TAKAHIRO KISHIOKA, RIKIMARU SAKAMOTO, and DAISUKE MARUYAMA ___________ Appeal 2021-001814 Application 11/992,595 Technology Center 1700 ___________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22 and 24 of Application 11/992,595. Final Act. (December 2, 2019). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2021-001814 Application 11/992,595 2 I. BACKGROUND The ’595 Application describes an anti-reflective coating for use in semiconductor manufacturing. Spec. ¶ 1. During the fabrication process, a photoresist layer is disposed on a substrate. Id. ¶ 2. The photoresist is irradiated with ultraviolet rays through a mask. Id. The exposed photoresist is then developed to obtain a resist pattern. Id. The substrate is then etched using the resist pattern as a protective film. Id. During the irradiation process, reflection of the UV rays off the substrate can create a variety of problems. Id. To reduce these problems, an anti-reflective coating can be disposed between the substrate and the photoresist. Id. The ’595 Application describes such an anti-reflective coating and methods for its use. Claim 22 is representative of the ’595 Application’s claims and is reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix. 22. A method for forming a photoresist pattern having no footing at the lower part of the photoresist for use in manufacturing semiconductor devices, comprising: coating an anti-reflective coating forming composition on a semiconductor substrate, and baking it to form an anti- reflective coating; forming a photoresist layer on the anti-reflective coating; exposing the semiconductor substrate covered with the anti- reflective coating and the photoresist layer to light; and developing the photoresist layer after the exposure to light to form a photoresist pattern having no footing at the lower part; wherein the anti-reflective coating forming composition comprises: a reaction product, an oligomer of the reaction product, a crosslinking compound, a solvent, and an acid compound, wherein Appeal 2021-001814 Application 11/992,595 3 the reaction product is a mixture of: a compound having a structure obtained by a reaction of an epoxy group of a compound of formula (1) where R1 is 2,3-epoxypropyl, with a carboxy group of a hydroxy benzoic acid compound; and a compound having a structure obtained by a reaction of one epoxy group of the compound of formula (1) with a hydroxy group and another epoxy group of formula (1) with a carboxy group of the hydroxy benzoic acid compound, the oligomer of the reaction product is obtained by a reaction of an epoxypropyl group of the compound of formula (1) with a carboxy group of the hydroxy benzoic acid compound and by a reaction of an epoxypropyl group of another compound of formula ( 1) with a hydroxy group of the hydroxy benzoic acid compound, the acid compound comprises pyridinium-p- toluene sulfonate, the reaction product is obtained by reacting the compound of formula (1) with the hydroxy benzoic acid compound in a molar ratio of 1:2 to 1:3 (the compound of formula (1): the hydroxy benzoic acid compound), the crosslinking compound comprises tetramethoxymethyl glycoluril, the content of the photoacid generator is 0.1 to 5 mass% of the solid content of the anti-reflective coating forming composition, Appeal 2021-001814 Application 11/992,595 4 the content of the acid compound is 0.1 to 5 mass% of the solid content of the anti-reflective coating forming composition, wherein the solid content of the anti- reflective coating forming composition is with respect to the mass of the anti-reflective coating forming composition excluding the solvent, and the anti-reflective coating has a thickness of 0.01 to 3.0 μm, a refractive index (n) at a wavelength of 193 nm of 1.69 to 1.81, and an attenuation coefficient (k) of 0.44 to 0.47. Appeal Br. Claims App. A-1-A-2. II. REJECTION On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejection: Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3; Advisory Act. 3-4 (June 23, 2020). III. DISCUSSION During prosecution, Appellant amended claims 22 and 24, adding the following language to each: “the anti-reflective coating has . . . a refractive index (n) at a wavelength of 193 nm of 1.69 to 1.81, and an attenuation coefficient (k) of 0.44 to 0.47.” The Examiner rejected the amended claims, finding that the new limitations lacked written description support in the originally-filed specification. Advisory Act. 3-4. To comply with the written description requirement, an applicant’s specification must convey with reasonable clarity to a person of ordinary skill in the art that, as of the filing date, the applicant was in possession of Appeal 2021-001814 Application 11/992,595 5 the claimed invention. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 2008). An inventor demonstrates possession by providing enough description in the specification to show that he actually invented what has been claimed-a “‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention” is not enough. Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 636 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellant argues that the rejection should be reversed. Appeal Br. 8- 15. Appellant specifically argues that, when the entire Specification of the ’595 Application is considered, a person having ordinary skill in the art would realize that the inventors had possession of the features of the rejected claims. Id. at 9-11 (citing Abstract, ¶¶ 52, 85). We are not persuaded by this argument. We have considered the entirety of the ’595 Application’s Specification, paying particular attention to the portions cited in Appellant’s briefs. Considered as a whole, the Specification does not demonstrate that the inventors possessed a method for forming a photoresist pattern having no footing comprising the use of an anti-reflective coating with the optical properties recited in claims 22 and 24. As the Abstract demonstrates, the inventors had possession of a method using an anti-reflective coating that could form a photoresist pattern having no footing. Abstract (“The anti-reflective coating obtained from the composition . . . can form a photoresist pattern having no footing at the lower part . . . .”). Paragraph 52 establishes the inventors’ belief that they could control the anti-reflective coating’s optical properties, including the refractive index an attenuation coefficient. Spec. ¶ 52 (“The addition of such a polymer makes possible to control characteristics of the anti-reflective Appeal 2021-001814 Application 11/992,595 6 coating . . . such as refractive index, attenuation coefficient, etching rate or the like.”). The heart of the problem with claims 22 and 24 is the lack of support for the specific ranges recited in these claims. Paragraph 85 describes the optical properties of 11 exemplary anti-reflective coatings. Examples 1-10 are reported to have the same optical properties: refractive index at 193 nm of 1.81 and an attenuation coefficient of 0.44. These properties were reported to be 1.69 and 0.47, respectively, for the anti-reflective coating in Example 11. However, Example 11is reported to create a photoresist having “a little footing at the lower part of the photoresist.” Spec. ¶ 87. Considered as a whole, these disclosures demonstrate that the inventors had possession of an anti-reflective coating that result in a photoresist pattern having no footings that has a refractive index of around 1.81 and an attenuation coefficient of around 0.44. Paragraph 52 demonstrates that the inventors had possession of an anti-reflective coating with optical properties that varied from those observed in Examples 1-9. The Specification, however, does not demonstrate that the inventors had any idea of the magnitude and/or direction of the changes that could be induced by addition of varying amounts of a variety of polymers without resulting in a photoresist pattern having a footing. The Specification demonstrates that the inventors had, at best, a wish or hope that they could create an antireflective coating having the optical properties exhibited by the anti- reflective coating in Example 11 that would result in a photoresist pattern having no footing. A wish or a hope that something might be achievable is not enough to demonstrate possession of the claimed subject matter. Appeal 2021-001814 Application 11/992,595 7 In sum, the Examiner correctly found that the specific ranges recited in claims 22 and 24 lacked written description support in the originally-filed Specification. We, therefore, affirm. IV. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 22, 24 112 Written description 22, 24 V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED