APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 18, 2020

14896854 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2020)

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.
14/896,854 12/08/2015 Roman GOUK 020921USAP/
ATG/ATG/ESONG
5923
44257 7590 09/18/2020
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPLIED MATERIALS
24 GREENWAY PLAZA
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046
EXAMINER
ISAAC, STANETTA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2898
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2020 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):
Pair_Eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
psdocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROMAN GOUK and STEVEN VERHAVERBEKE
Appeal 2019-006906
Application 14/896,854
Technology Center 2800

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s March 22, 2018 decision to finally reject claims 1–6 and 8–15
(“Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 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 Applied
Materials, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).
Appeal 2019-006906
Application 14/896,854

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to a method for processing a
substrate (Abstract). The method comprises providing a silicon substrate
having an aperture containing an exposed silicon contact surface at a bottom
of the aperture, depositing a metal seed layer on the exposed silicon contact
surface and exposing the substrate to an electroplating process by flowing a
current through a backside of the substrate to form a metal layer on the metal
seed layer (id.). Details of the claimed method are set forth in representative
claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claim Appendix to the Appeal
Brief:
1. A method for depositing a material on a substrate,
comprising:
depositing a metal seed layer on an exposed silicon
contact surface at a bottom of an aperture on a silicon substrate;
exposing a backside of the substrate to a potassium
hydroxide solution while exposing the metal seed layer to a
copper containing solution, wherein the substrate separates the
potassium hydroxide solution from the copper containing
solution; and
flowing a current through the substrate to form a metal
layer on the metal seed layer.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Shih et al. US 2005/0189233 A1 September 1, 2005
Sun et al. US 2007/0125657 A1 June 7, 2007
Halahan et al. US 2007/0128868 A1 June 7, 2007
Baskaran et al. US 2012/0152751 A1 June 21, 2012

Appeal 2019-006906
Application 14/896,854

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shih in view of Baskaran and Halahan.
2. Claims 9–12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shih in view of Halahan and Baskaran.
3. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Shih in view of Halahan and Baskaran, and further in view of Sun.

DISCUSSION
The Examiner finds that “Shih discloses the semiconductor method
substantially as claimed” (Final Act. 3). The Examiner also finds that Shih
does not explicitly disclose that the substrate separates the potassium
hydroxide solution from the copper containing solution (id.). However, the
Examiner further finds, without a specific citation to the record, that Shih
teaches “performing a deposition process using electroplating where the
substrate separates the metal salts from any other component[s] in the
electroplating solution” (id.). The Examiner also finds that Baskaran
discloses using potassium hydroxide as a pH adjustment agent in an
electrolytic copper process. The Examiner determines that it would have
been obvious “to incorporate[] exposing a backside of the substrate to a
potassium hydroxide solution while exposing the metal seed layer to a
copper containing solution, in the method of Shih, according to the teachings
of Baskaran” (id.). The motivation to do so, as set forth in the Final Action,
would have been to maintain specific pH levels within the desired ranges
(id.). Moreover, according to the Examiner, “it would [have been] obvious
Appeal 2019-006906
Application 14/896,854

4
that the substrate separates the metal salts from any other component in the
electroplating solution” (id., not citing the record).
Appellant contends, inter alia, that the Examiner’s findings of what is
disclosed by the references are inaccurate (Appeal Br. 7). In particular,
Appellant argues that Baskaran does not disclose separating the potassium
hydroxide containing solution from the copper containing solution, as
required by claim 1 (“wherein the substrate separates the potassium
hydroxide solution from the copper containing solution”). Appellant points
to Baskaran’s disclosure that its first processing solution contains both
potassium hydroxide and copper ions which are not, therefore, separated by
a substrate (Appeal Br, 7–8, citing Baskaran ¶¶ 31–34).
In response, the Examiner points to Shih’s disclosure that its process,
as was conventionally known in the art, separates copper metal from the
salts to be deposited to the semi-conductor wafer (Ans. 6, citing Shih ¶¶ 7–
11).
However, as explained by Appellant (Reply Br. 3), none of the
Examiner’s findings demonstrate that, as recited in the claims, Shih or
Baskaran teach that the copper ions and potassium hydroxide are separated
by the substrate.
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness based on an inherent or explicit disclosure of the claimed
subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445
(Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the
prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.”). To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described
Appeal 2019-006906
Application 14/896,854

5
or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the
knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In this instance, the evidence of record does not
establish that it would have been obvious to have a substrate separating the
potassium hydroxide solution from the copper containing solution, as recited
in each of the independent claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejections.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8 103 Shih, Baskaran,
Halahan
1–6, 8
9–12, 14, 15 103 Shih, Halahan,
Baskaran
9–12, 14, 15
13 103 Shih, Halahan,
Baskaran, Sun
13
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–15

REVERSED