Ex Parte Basker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2016

13348894 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/348,894 01112/2012 VEERARAGHA VANS. BASKER
45988 7590 07/27/2016
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. Box 10064
MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
FIS920110174US1 2863
EXAMINER
GONDARENKO, NATALIA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2891
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2016 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):
docketing@rmsc2.com
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
dbeltran@rmsc2.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VEERARAGHA VAN S. BASKER, DAVID V. HORAK,
CHARLES W. KOBURGER III, SHOM PONOTH,
and CHIH-CHAO YANG
Appeal2015-000132
Application 13/348,894
Technology Center 2800
Before LARRY J. HUME, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-12 and 14--20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corp. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000132
Application 13/348,894
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a borderless contact structure.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
forming a gate structure, comprising:
forming a gate dielectric material on a substrate;
forming a work function metal on the gate dielectric
material;
metal;
forming a metal material on the work function
forming a material on the metal material;
forming a masking material on the material;
patterning the metal material, material and the
masking material;
forming spacers on sidewalls of the patterned metal
material, material and the masking material;
after formation of the spacers, patterning the gate
dielectric material and the work function metal with the
spacers used as a masking to set a dimension of the
patterned gate dielectric material and the work function
metal;
forming a space within the gate structure by removing the
material and the masking material, defined by the spacers;
forming device spacers on the side of the spacers and the
patterned gate dielectric material and the work function metal,
extending to the substrate;
forming source and drain regions on the substrate and
sides of the device spacers;
blanket depositing a sealing material in the space, over the
gate structure and on the source and drain regions comprising
semiconductor material;
removing the sealing material from over the gate structure
and on the semiconductor material, while leaving the sealing
material within the space;
forming an interlevel dielectric material over the gate
structure subsequent to the removing of the sealing material;
2
Appeal2015-000132
Application 13/348,894
patterning the interlevel dielectric material to form an
opening exposing the semiconductor material and a portion of
the gate structure; and
forming a contact in the opening formed in the interlevel
dielectric material, wherein:
the masking material, the spacers, the device spacers and
the sealing material are formed of a first material type,
the material is a second material type, different than the
first material type,
the interlevel dielectric material is different than the first
material type, and
the patterning the interlevel dielectric material is a
selective etch such that the spacers, the device spacers and the
sealing material of the first material type remain intact during the
patterning of the interlevel dielectric material.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Dennison
Kumar
Dyer
Callegari
Furukawa
Lin
US 2001/0001506 Al
US 2008/0124814 Al
US 2009/0230427 Al
US 2009/0283830 Al
US 7,659,171 B2
US 2012/0126331 Al
REJECTIONS
May 24; 2001
May 29, 2008
Sept. 1 7, 2009
Nov. 19, 2009
Feb.9,2010
May 24, 2012
(filed Nov. 22, 2010)
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Callegari in view of Kumar, Dennison, Dyer, and
Furukawa. Final Act. 2-13.
3
Appeal2015-000132
Application 13/348,894
Claims 12 and 14--17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Callegari in view of Kumar, Dennison, Dyer,
Furukawa, and Lin. Final Act. 13-20.
Claims 18 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Callegari in view of Kumar and Lin. Final Act. 20-
23.
Claim 19 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Callegari in view of Kumar, Lin, and Furukawa. Final
Act. 22-23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in combining the various
references to reject the claims. According to Appellants, the Examiner
engaged in "impermissible hindsight reasoning" "in an attempt to cobble
[the references] together to achieve the claimed invention." App. Br. 18; see
also App. Br. 9, 22; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants:
While the KSR court rejected a rigid application of the teaching,
suggestion, or motivation ("TSM") test in an obviousness
inquiry, the [Supreme] Court acknowledged the importance of
identifying "a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the
way the claimed new invention does" in an obviousness
determination. Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. v. Alphapharm
Pty., Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1356-1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting
4
Appeal2015-000132
Application 13/348,894
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1731
(2007)).
App. Br. 5, n.1.
The Examiner finds reasons for combining each of the prior art
references. See generally Final Act. 4---6, 14--17, 21-22. For example, the
Examiner finds Kumar, a secondary reference, teaches or suggest a process
for manufacturing a DRAM device in which the device spacers (16) are
formed on the side of the spacers (14) and the patterned gate dielectric
material (22) extending to the substrate (1) and source and drain regions (17)
are formed on the substrate (1) and sides of the device spacers (16). See
Final Act 4, 14, 21. The Examiner further finds that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated to combine those features of
Kumar with the teaching of Callegari in order to "obtain a DRAM device
with the passivation of defects at or near the surface of semiconductor
substrate." Final Act 4 (citing Kumar i-fi-f 19, 20); see also Final Act 14--15,
21-22 (same).
Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by "some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
cited with approval in KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). A rejection cannot be based on "speculation, unfounded
assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual
basis." In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to provide
adequate reasoning to combine Callegari and Kumar to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness of independent claims 1, 12, and 18. Although
5
Appeal2015-000132
Application 13/348,894
the Examiner accurately finds that Kumar is directed to "a method for
passivating defects on a semiconductor substrate wherein the defects are a
result of plasma etching procedures" (Kumar i-f 2), there is nothing in the
sections relied on by the Examiner (Kumar i-fi-1 19, 20) to show how the
specific, limited features the Examiner incorporates into Callegari would
provide those features. To the contrary, according to Kumar, the key feature
for the passivation of defects is "a low energy implantation of specific group
V ions," preferably arsenic ions. Kumar i-f 18. Therefore, we are persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding a motivation to incorporate the specific
features of Kumar discussed above into Callegari.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other
contentions.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1,
along with the rejections of claims 12 and 18, which recite commensurate
limitations, and which involve, in relevant part, the same combination of
Callegari and Kumar, along with dependent claims 2-11, 14--17, 19, and 20
which stand with their respective independent claim.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-12 and 14--20.
REVERSED
6