Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 22, 2012

11470922 (B.P.A.I. May. 22, 2012)

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.
11/470,922 09/07/2006 LING CHEN APPM/005192.C5/CPI/COPPER 8800
44257 7590 05/22/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
TALBOT, BRIAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LING CHEN, HUA CHUNG, BARRY L. CHIN, and
HONG ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2010-011791
Application 11/470,922
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, PETER F. KRATZ, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 21-29. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2010-011791
Application 11/470,922

2

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of processing a
substrate by pre-cleaning a dielectric layer using a plasma, introducing a gas
with a vortex flow pattern to deposit a barrier layer via atomic layer
deposition, including introducing a first gas flow in a circular direction about
a center line of an expanding channel connected to a reaction zone of the
chamber, and depositing a seed layer on the barrier layer. As described in
the Specification and as shown in Figures 1 and 6, for example, Appellants'
employ the term "expanding channel" to refer to a gas passageway with a
diameter (cross-section) that increases in a direction toward the substrate
receiving surface of the substrate support (Spec., paras. 0039-0042, and
0057, 0059, and 0063; Figs 1 and 6, item 234).

Claim 21 is illustrative and reproduced below:
21. A method for processing a substrate, comprising:
precleaning a dielectric layer on a substrate in a precleaning chamber, the
precleaning comprising striking an argon plasma and a hydrogen plasma;
introducing a gas having a vortex flow pattern to a chamber to deposit a
barrier layer on the substrate during an atomic layer deposition process; and
depositing a seed layer on the barrier layer, wherein the introducing a gas
having a vortex flow pattern to the chamber comprises introducing a first gas
flow in a circular direction about a center line of an expanding channel
connected to an reaction zone of the chamber.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Grant U.S. 6,428,847 B1 Aug. 6, 2002
Lopatin U.S. 6,368,954 B1 Apr. 9, 2002
Cohen EP 1 081 751 A2 Jan. 9, 2000
Barney (as translated) JP 2001-85331 Mar. 30, 2001
Cohen (as translated) JP 2001-168075 Jun. 22, 2001
Appeal 2010-011791
Application 11/470,922

3

Claims 21-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lopatin in combination with JP 2001-168,075 or JP 2001-
085,331 or EP 1081751A2 further in combination with Grant.
We reverse the stated rejection. Our reasoning follows.
The Examiner relies on Grant for allegedly teaching a vortex flow
pattern and an expanding channel 14, which expanding channel is alleged to
be shaped like the disclosed and claimed expanding channel (Ans. 4 and 5).
The Examiner maintains that modifying Lopatin, as already modified by
Barney (JP ‘331), Cohen (JP ‘075) and/or Cohen (EP ‘751), by using a gas
flow vortex flow pattern [in an expanding chamber] as claimed by
Appellants would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
light of the teachings of Grant (id.).
Appellants argue, among other things, that Grant does not teach that
reactor sidewall 14 provides an expanding channel shape, as claimed (App.
Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 3). Rather, it is urged that Grant discloses using a
contracting shape for the channel inside reactor sidewall 14 as the sidewall
14 reduces in diameter (id.). We agree with Appellants.
As clearly shown by Grant, the reactor sidewall 14 reduces in
diameter in a direction toward the wafer substrate 50 (Figs 2 and 5).
Consequently, even if it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Lopatin by employing the vortex flow pattern of Grant and
a sloped reaction chamber 14 as employed by Grant therein, such a
modification would not result in a process using an expanding channel as
Appellants’ require in the process of sole independent claim 21.
On this record, we reverse the stated obviousness rejection.
Appeal 2010-011791
Application 11/470,922

4

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject the appealed claims is reversed.

REVERSED

tc