Young Hoon Kim et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

15396697 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
15/396,697 01/02/2017 Young Hoon KIM PPP20164355US 5431
66390 7590 09/23/2019
LEX IP MEISTER, PLLC
5180 PARKSTONE DRIVE, SUITE 175
CHANTILLY, VA 20151
EXAMINER
MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2019 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 YOUNGHOON KIM, DAE YOUN KIM, and SANG WOOK LEE
____________

Appeal 2019-001575
Application 15/396,697
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–19. (Appeal Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents: Specification
filed January 2, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action mailed April 16, 2018
(“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed September 10, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed October 12, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief filed
December 14, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ASM IP
Holding, B.V. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-001575
Application 15/396,697

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant states the invention relates to a method of depositing a thin
film. (Spec. 1, l. 12.)
Claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is representative and
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method of depositing a thin film, the method
comprising:
supplying a source gas to a reaction space;
repeating a first gas supply cycle a first plurality of times,
the first gas supply cycle comprising supplying first plasma
while supplying a reactant gas to the reaction space;
supplying the source gas to the reaction space; and
repeating a second gas supply cycle a second plurality of
times, the second gas supply cycle comprising supplying
second plasma while supplying the reactant gas to the reaction
space,
wherein the supplying of the first plasma is executed by
supplying remote plasma, and the supplying of the second
plasma is executed by supplying direct plasma,
wherein the first gas supply cycle is firstly repeated the first
plurality of times at initial step of depositing the thin film to
reduce sub-layer oxidation, and then the second gas supply
cycle is repeated the second plurality of times, and
wherein the repeating of the first plurality of times
comprises repeating the first gas supply cycle up to ten times.
(Appeal Br. (Claims Appendix) 14.)
Appeal 2019-001575
Application 15/396,697

3
REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1–9, 13–17, and 193 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Kraus et al. (US 2005/0042373 A1, published
February 24, 2005, hereinafter “Kraus”).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Wang et al. (US 2008/0020593 A1, published January 24, 2008,
hereinafter “Wang”) and Kraus.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Wang and Moghadam et al. (US
2005/0019494 A1, published January 27, 2005, hereinafter
“Moghadam”).
(Final Act. 2–7.)
We limit our discussion to independent claim 1, which is sufficient for
disposition of this appeal.

Rejection 1
ISSUE
The Examiner found Kraus discloses an atomic layer deposition
(ALD) process including providing a pulse of source gas into a reaction
space, and repeating a sequence of applying a reactant gas into the process

3 The Examiner’s statement of rejection lists only claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 15, 16,
and 19 as subject to this rejection, but the Examiner discusses also claims 2,
3, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 17 under this rejection. (Final Act. 2–3.) As such, we
understand these claims to be rejected as well. The Examiner’s error in
listing the rejected claims is harmless as these claims all depend from claim
1, and Appellant presents arguments for claim 1 only as a basis for
patentability of all the claims. (See Appeal Br. 11.)
Appeal 2019-001575
Application 15/396,697

4
space while supplying a first and second plasma, where Kraus teaches
remote and direct plasma are applied as the plasma source. (Final Act. 2.)
The Examiner determined, alternatively, that it would have been obvious to
have applied a remote plasma source in addition to a direct power source,
because Kraus discloses both power supplies “are operably applied
together.” (Id.) The Examiner stated the first and second gas supply steps
are considered to be either alternative or simultaneous, and because Kraus
discloses the steps are repeated, the first and second supply cycles are
repeated. (Id.) In the Answer, the Examiner stated further that “one would
apply a remote plasma to form a specific thickness and then alternate to
direct plasma, with an expectation of operability.” (Ans. 9.) The Examiner
determined Kraus is not limiting as to the number of cycles such that it
would have been obvious to apply the cycle ten times to obtain a desired
film thickness. (Id. at 3.)
Appellant argues, inter alia, Kraus does not teach or suggest the
claimed order of the remote plasma (first plasma) and the direct plasma
(second plasma), where the first gas supply cycle is repeated a first plurality
of times at an initial step of depositing the thin film in order to prevent sub-
layer oxidation. (Appeal Br. 7.) Rather, Appellant argues Kraus merely
discloses remote plasma and direct plasma as suitable sources, and Kraus is
indifferent to the processing order of supplying remote and direct plasma.
(Id.)
Accordingly, the dispositive issue with respect to this rejection is:
Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s position
that it would have been obvious in view of Kraus to repeat a first gas supply
cycle including supplying a first plasma as a remote plasma up to ten times
Appeal 2019-001575
Application 15/396,697

5
and then repeating a second gas supply cycle including supplying second
plasma as a direct plasma a second plurality of times as required in claim 1?
DISCUSSION
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not
provided sufficient reasoning to render the first and second gas cycles
recited in claim 1 obvious. In particular, claim 1 recites that the first gas
supply cycle executed by supplying remote plasma “is firstly repeated the
first plurality of times at initial step of depositing the thin film to reduce sub-
layer oxidation, and then the second gas supply cycle is repeated the second
plurality of times” (emphasis added), the second gas supply cycle being
executed by supplying direct plasma. Thus, claim 1 requires a first gas
supply cycle applying a remote plasma a first plurality of times prior to a
second gas supply cycle applying a direct plasma a second plurality of times.
Kraus discloses “[a]lternately or in addition thereto, the second
precursor plasma can be generated from applying plasma power to a flowing
second precursor externally of the deposition chamber, such as using remote
plasma.” (Kraus, ¶ 23.) Although we agree with the Examiner that Kraus
discloses either direct or remote plasma as a plasma source in some fashion,
we are of the view the Examiner’s reasoning, relying generally on repeating
a number of cycles to achieve a desired thickness and “operability” to
conclude that the method of claim 1 would have been obvious, is not based
on sufficient rational underpinnings. That is, Kraus’s disclosure does not
speak to the particular arrangement of repeating a number of cycles where
remote plasma is first used as the plasma source and then repeating a second
number of cycles where direct plasma is used as the plasma source. (See
Appeal 2019-001575
Application 15/396,697

6
Reply Br. 5.) The Examiner’s general statements do not provide a sufficient
basis in view of the disclosure in Kraus to explain why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have arranged the remote and direct plasma sources as
recited in claim 1.
As a result, the Examiner’s analysis falls short as to providing
sufficient reasoning to explain why claim 1 would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“‘[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’”).
Rejection 2
Similar to Rejection 1, the Examiner found Wang discloses a method
of depositing a film utilizing gas supply cycles including plasma, where the
steps are repeated. (Final Act. 3–4.) The Examiner found Wang discloses
the plasma applied is direct and/or remote, such that it would have been
obvious to have applied either direct and/or remote plasma for any portion of
the process with an expectation of success. (Id. at 4.) The Examiner again
cited Kraus as evidence a combination of each of the plasma formation
methods would have been operable. (Id.) The Examiner determined also
the first and second gas supply cycles would have been applied multiple
times, such as about ten times, in order to form an operable layer. (Id. at 5.)
Similar to Rejection 1, Appellant argues Wang discloses remote and
direct plasma as alternatives, and Wang does not disclose repeating times of
the first gas supply cycle. (Appeal Br. 8.) In this regard, Wang discloses
Appeal 2019-001575
Application 15/396,697

7
“[t]he plasma generator may be a direct plasma generator (i.e., in situ or
direct plasma generation) or a remote plasma generator (i.e., ex situ or
remote plasma generation). (Wang, ¶ 21.)
Thus, Rejection 2 suffers from the same deficiencies discussed above
with respect to Rejection 1. In particular, Wang does not remedy the
deficiencies discussed above with respect to Kraus as to the arrangement of
plasma sources recited in the method of claim 1.
Therefore, we reverse Rejection 2 for similar reasons.
Rejection 3
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 19, subjected to Rejection 3, all
depend from claim 1. Moghadam is cited only for disclosing constant flow
of oxygen during ALD processes (Final Act. 6–7), and does not remedy the
deficiencies discussed above with respect to Wang. As a result, we reverse
Rejection 3 for similar reasons as Rejection 2.
DECISION
Claims
Rejected
Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 13–17,
and 19
§ 103 Kraus 1–9, 13–
17, and 19
1–19 § 103 Wang and
Kraus
1–19
4, 5, 8, 9,
15, 16, 18,
and 19
§ 103 Kraus and
Moghadam
4, 5, 8, 9,
15, 16, 18,
and 19
Overall
Outcome
1–19

REVERSED