Ex Parte Brown

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2017

13783382 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2017)

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.
13/783,382 03/03/2013 IAN J. BROWN SPS-016US1 5576
37694 7590 10/02/2017
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP (TOKYO ELECTRON)
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
PARIHAR, PRADHUMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2017 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):
usptodock@whe-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte
IAN J. BROWN
Appeal 2016-007202
Application 13/783,382
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—24 and 36-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§6.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, Tokyo Electron Limited, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007202
Application 13/783,382
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a semiconductor substrate cleaning
process comprising a pre-treatment process with a process gas and a wet
clean process. (Spec. 12). Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the principal
Brief:
1. A method for cleaning a substrate in a cleaning system, the
cleaning system comprising a pre-treatment system and a wet
clean system, the pre-treatment system including a processing
chamber and a gas delivery sub-system, the method comprising:
selecting one or more pre-treatment objectives for the pre­
treatment system;
selecting two or more pre-treatment operating variables to be
optimized for achieving the one or more pre-treatment
objectives;
providing a substrate having a layer to be cleaned and an
underlying dielectric layer, the underlying dielectric layer
having a k-value;
delivering a pre-treatment gas onto a surface of the substrate in
the processing chamber using the gas delivery sub-system; and
irradiating the pre-treatment gas with an ultra-violet (UV)
device and generating radicals for pre-treatment of the
substrate, the irradiation completed during a pre-treatment first
process time, the UV device having one or more dominant
emission wavelengths and a UV dose;
obtaining one or more metrology measurements in the pre­
treatment system during the irradiating; and
controlling the selected two or more pre-treatment operating
variables during the irradiating using the obtained one or more
2
Appeal 2016-007202
Application 13/783,382
metrology measurements in the pre-treatment system to achieve
the selected one or more pre-treatment objectives;
wherein the pre-treatment gas comprises oxygen or oxygen and
ozone and wherein the two or more pre-treatment operating
variables comprises two or more of the light UV dose, substrate
temperature, first process time, oxygen partial pressure, oxygen
and ozone partial pressure, and/or total process gas pressure;
and
wherein the one or more pre-treatment objectives includes a
pre-treatment cleaning percentage that is selected to be less than
100 percent.
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
of claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15—18, and 22 as unpatentable over Suzuki (US
2001/0017142 Al) as evidenced by Hayes et al. (US 2008/0268214 Al); and
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 5—7, 9, 12—14, 19-21, 23, 24,
and 36-44 over Suzuki alone or in combination with additional prior art.
(App. Br. 8—23; Final Act. 5—27).
OPINION2
Upon consideration of the relied-upon evidence in this appeal record
in light of the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant,
we determine that Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Suzuki, describes or suggests “obtaining one or more
metrology measurements in the pre-treatment system during the irradiating;
and controlling the selected two or more pre-treatment operating variables
during the irradiating using the obtained one or more metrology
2 We limit our discussion to independent claims 1,36 and 44.
3
Appeal 2016-007202
Application 13/783,382
measurements in the pretreatment system to achieve the selected one or
more pre-treatment objectives” as required by independent claims 1,36
and 44.3
The Examiner has the initial burden of establishing the unpatentability
of the subject matter recited in the claims on appeal. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he [patent] examiner bears the initial
burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability.”); see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365—66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that while “the applicant must identify
to the Board what the examiner did wrong,. . . the examiner retains the
burden to show [unpatentability]”).
According to the Examiner, Suzuki teaches a method for cleaning a
substrate in a cleaning system comprising a pre-treatment system and a wet
cleaning system. (Final Act. 5—8). The Examiner found Suzuki teaches the
pre-treatment system requires applying two wavelengths which reads on
obtaining metrology measurements during irradiating. (Id. at 6). The
Examiner specifically states:
the UV device having dominant emission wavelengths and a range for
UV dose (para 0012-0013 para 0016, and para 0018); obtaining a
metrology measurement in the pre-treatment system during irradiating
[irradiating with ultraviolet rays including wavelengths of 184.9 nm
3 The Examiner cited additional references for rejecting independent
claims 36 and 44 to address other limitations of these claims not related to
the dispositive issue. (Final Act. 17—26).
4
Appeal 2016-007202
Application 13/783,382
and 253.7nm and obtaining peaks at these wavelengths (para 0012-
GO 13) reads on obtaining a metrology measurement which is the
wavelength during irradiating and obtaining the time duration of
irradiating during irradiating (para 0026) also reads on obtaining
metrology measurement during irradiating] ;and controlling the
selected pre-treatment operating variables during the irradiating using
the obtained metrology measurements in the pre-treatment system
(para 0016, 0018, 0026, and 0030; such as degree of soiling and
removal rate) to achieve the pretreatment objectives (para 0016, 0018,
0026, and 0030; such as production cost and cleaning percentage)
(Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues Suzuki fails to expressly disclose selection of
objectives for the pre-treatment irradiation process, obtaining metrology
measurements during the irradiating, and controlling operating variables
during the irradiating based on the metrology measurements to achieve the
objectives. (App. Br. 8—12).
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s rejection of the
independent claims is in error. The claimed invention requires selecting the
result to be achieved, selecting operating variables to achieve that result,
performing the process using the selected variables together with metrology
measurements obtained during the irradiating, and controlling operating
variables during the irradiating based on the metrology measurements to
achieve the result as specified by independent claims 1,36 and 44. Suzuki
selects operating variables, but takes no metrology measurements during the
irradiating, and does not control operating variables during the irradiating
based on the measurements. Additionally, we agree with Appellant that
there is no disclosure in Suzuki that the process operation would be known
5
Appeal 2016-007202
Application 13/783,382
to achieve a pre-treatment cleaning percentage of less than 100% and that
operation was specifically selected so as to get that known result. (App. Br.
9)
Accordingly, for the reasons presented by Appellant and discussed
above, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—
24 and 36-A4.
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1—24 and 36-44 are
reversed.
REVERSED
6