Ex Parte Cohen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

11827829 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/827,829 07/13/2007 Uri Cohen ENH-03 2112
7590 07/27/2012
Uri Cohen
4147 Dake Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
EXAMINER
WILKINS III, HARRY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1723
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2012 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 URI COHEN
____________

Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before PETER F. KRATZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, 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 1-6 and 8-37. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

2
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to apparatus for
electroplating a metal, such as copper, or a metal alloy on a substrate for
filling openings, such as an opening with a narrow and high aspect ratio
(Spec. 1:11-12, and 5:10 – 6:2).
Claims 1, 16, and 25 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. An apparatus for electroplating copper or a copper alloy on a
substrate having at least one opening located at a front surface of the
substrate, wherein at least one surface inside the at least one opening
comprises an exposed metallic surface, the apparatus comprising:
an electrochemical deposition (ECD) cell that contains an electrolyte
comprising copper ions and at least one inhibitor additive, said copper ions
and the at least one inhibitor additive having concentrations;
a fixture adapted to hold the substrate so that at least a portion of the
front surface of the substrate is immersed in the electrolyte during
electroplating;
at least one anode, wherein at least a portion of the at least one anode
is immersed in said electrolyte during electroplating;
a power supply adapted to generate an electroplating current through
the electrolyte between a cathode and said at least one anode, wherein the
cathode comprises, when the fixture holds the substrate, exposed metallic
surfaces in the at least a portion of the front surface of the substrate; and
jet nozzles adapted to produce electrolyte jets impinging on the front
surface of the substrate in a direction that is substantially normal to the front
surface of the substrate, the jet nozzles being adapted to rotate about the
normal direction and/or the fixture being adapted to rotate the substrate
about the normal direction;
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

3
wherein:
(a) the electrolyte jets and rotation of the jet nozzles and/or the fixture
are adapted to produce a turbulent flow agitation of the electrolyte across the
at least a portion of the front surface of the substrate that can be sufficiently
vigorous, (b) the concentrations are sufficiently large, and (c) the power
supply can generate sufficient current to produce an average electroplating
current density greater than about 20 mA/cm2 across the at least a portion of
the front surface of the substrate, so that the apparatus can provide void-free
filling inside the at least one opening by electroplating the copper or the
copper alloy on the substrate.
16. An apparatus for electroplating a metal or an alloy on a
substrate having at least one opening located at a front surface of the
substrate, wherein at least one surface inside the at least one opening
comprises an exposed metallic surface, said apparatus comprising:
an electrochemical deposition (ECD) cell adapted to contain an
electrolyte comprising plating metallic ions and at least one inhibitor
additive, said plating metallic ions and the at least one inhibitor additive
having a concentrations;
a fixture adapted to hold the substrate so that at least a portion of the
front surface of the substrate is immersed in the electrolyte during
electroplating on the substrate;
at least one anode, wherein at least a portion of the at least one anode
is immersed in said electrolyte during electroplating;
a power supply adapted to generate an electroplating current through
the electrolyte between a cathode and said at least one anode, wherein the
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

4
cathode comprises, when the fixture holds the substrate, exposed metallic
surfaces in the at least a portion of the front surface of the substrate; and
an ultrasonic or megasonic agitator adapted to produce flow agitation
of the electrolyte across the at least a portion of the front surface of the
substrate, during at least a portion of
electroplating on the substrate;
wherein:
(a) the flow agitation can be sufficiently vigorous, (b) the
concentrations are sufficiently large, and (c) the power supply can generate
sufficient current to produce an average electroplating current density
greater than about 20 mA/cm2 across the at least a portion of the front
surface of the substrate, so that the apparatus can provide void-flee filling
inside the at least one opening by electroplating the metal or the alloy on the
substrate.
25. An apparatus for electroplating a metal or an alloy on a
substrate having at least one opening located at a front surface of the
substrate, wherein at least one surface inside the at least one opening
comprises an exposed metallic surface, the apparatus comprising:
an electrochemical deposition (ECD) cell adapted to contain an
electrolyte comprising plating metallic ions and at least one inhibitor
additive, said plating metallic ions and the at least one inhibitor additive
having concentrations;
a fixture adapted to hold the substrate so that at least a portion of the
front surface of the substrate is immersed in the electrolyte during
electroplating on the substrate;
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

5
at least one anode, wherein, when the electrolyte is contained in the
cell, at least a portion of the at least one anode is adapted to be immersed in
said electrolyte during electroplating;
a power supply adapted to generate an electroplating current through
the electrolyte between a cathode and said at least one anode, wherein the
cathode comprises, when the fixture holds the substrate, exposed metallic
surfaces in the at least a portion of the front surface of the substrate; and
one or more non-contacting wiping blades, and/or one or more non-
contacting wiping pads, and/or one or more non-contacting wiping brushes
adapted to move relative to the substrate, and/or the fixture being adapted to
move the substrate relative to the one or more non- contacting wiping
blades, or relative to the one or more non-contacting wiping pads, or relative
to the one or more non-contacting wiping brushes;
wherein:
(a) movement of the non-contacting wiping blades, and/or pads,
and/or brushes, and/or movement of the fixture relative to the non-contacting
wiping blades, or relative to the non- contacting pads, or relative to the non-
contacting brushes, is adapted to produce a sufficiently vigorous flow
agitation of the electrolyte that can produce a diffusion layer thickness of
less than about 20µm across the at least a portion of the front surface of the
substrate, (b) the concentrations can be sufficiently large, and (c) the power
supply can generate sufficient current to produce an average electroplating
current density greater than about 20 mA/cm2 across the at least a portion of
the front surface of the substrate, so that the apparatus can provide void-free
filling inside the at least one opening by electroplating the metal or the alloy
on the substrate.
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

6
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Tzanavaras 5,421,987 Jun. 6, 1995
Basol 6,534,116 B2 Mar. 18, 2003
Downes, Jr. 2002/0189637 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
Ishibashi 3,933,601 Jan. 20, 1976
Anderson 3,715,299 Feb. 6, 1973
Tsai 6,224,737 B1 May 1, 2001
Calhoun 5,883,762 Mar. 16, 1999

The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1) Claims 1-5 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Tzanavaras.
2) Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Basol.
3) Claims 6, 16-19, and 33-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Downes.
4) Claims 6, 16-19, and 33-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Ishibashi.
5) Claims 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of either Downes or Ishibashi, and
Anderson.
6) Claims 25-31, 8-10, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Anderson.
7) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Anderson and either of Downes or
Ishibashi.
8) Claims 1-5 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Tsai and Calhoun.
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

7
9) Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Tsai, Calhoun, and Downes or
Ishibashi.
10) Claims 30 and 31stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Anderson further in view of Tsai
and Calhoun.
11) Claims 35-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of either Downes or Ishibashi, further
taken with Tsai and Calhoun.1
We reverse the stated rejections.
Anticipation Rejections
The Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
case of anticipation. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir.
1999).
Concerning the anticipation rejection over Tzanavaras, we agree with
Appellant that the subject matter of the rejected claims is not anticipated by
Tzanavaras. In this regard, we agree with Appellant that the claimed
apparatus requires an electrochemical deposition cell that contains an
electrolyte that includes copper ions and an inhibitor additive (App. Br. 12 -
13). While we appreciate the Examiner’s arguments equating the particular

1 Rejections 8-11constitute new grounds set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 15-
20). A previously maintained rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-37 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph stands withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2).
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

8
electrolyte recited in rejected claim 1 to an intended use (Ans. 4-5, we
respectfully disagree with that assessment of the claimed subject matter.
Rather, we are of the opinion that the plain language of claim 1 makes it
clear that an electrochemical deposition cell containing an electrolyte, which
electrolyte comprising copper ions and an inhibitor, is part of the recited
electroplating apparatus required by claim 1. The Examiner has not
established that Tzanavaras describes an electrochemical cell containing a
corresponding electrolyte to that required by claim 1 (Ans. 4, 5, and 21).
Rather, in the new grounds of rejection introduced in the Answer, the
Examiner acknowledges that Tzanavaras does not expressly teach an
electrolyte containing copper ions and an inhibitor (Ans. 16).
As such, we reverse the anticipation rejection over Tzanavaras, on this
appeal record.
As for the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 25 by Basol, we
are in agreement with Appellant in that the Examiner has not reasonably
established that the relied upon mask of Basol corresponds to the one or
more non-contacting wiping pads (blades or brushes) that are adapted to
produce a sufficiently vigorous flow agitation of the electrolyte during
movement of the non-contacting wiping pad(s) and/or the substrate such that
the relative movement therebetween can produce a diffusion layer thickness
less than about 20µm across at least a portion of the substrate front surface,
which substrate front surface portion is immersed in the electrolyte, as
specified in rejected claim 25. In this regard, we share Appellant’s view that
Basol describes an apparatus including a contacting mask, which apparatus
is generally described as being operable for mask-pulsed plating when the
mask makes contact with a wafer with electrolyte making contact with the
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

9
wafer via holes in the contact mask (App. Br. 14-16; Basol, col. 8, ll. 56-67;
col. 9, ll. 22-50; and col. 10, ll. 20-35).
The Examiner correctly observes that Basol further discloses a non-
contacting position for the mask (Ans. 6, 21, and 22; Basol, col. 11, ll. 49-
67). However, Appellant argues the last mentioned portion of the
disclosure of Basol relates to a mask position disclosed for use in a first
stage of a two stage plating process, wherein the mask is positioned in a
pulled away location relative to the substrate such that the mask is not in
proximity to the wafer during a traditional plating operation and would not
be expected to be capable of the claimed vigorous flow agitation and wiping
functions for a non-contacting wiping pad as set forth in claim 25 (Reply Br.
20 and 21; Spec. p17, ll. 10-17).
On this record, the Examiner has not discharged the burden of
establishing that the mask described by Basol would have been reasonably
expected to have the wiping pad attributes for a non-contacting pad as
recited in rejected claim 25 when the mask is in the pulled away position
described by Basol.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection over Basol.

Obviousness Rejections
Concerning Rejections 3 and 4, the Examiner acknowledges that
Tzanavaras does not teach an ultrasonic or megasonic agitator, which
agitator is adapted to produce flow agitation of the electrolyte across at least
a portion of the front substrate surface during electroplating, according to
independent claim 16 and dependent claim 6. The Examiner relies on either
Downes (Rejection 3) or Ishibashi (Rejection 4) to allegedly teach and
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

10
suggest employing ultrasonic or megasonic equipment allegedly
corresponding to Appellants’ claimed agitator in Tzanavaras, for the purpose
of ensuring adequate wetting of interiors of openings of the substrate in
accordance with teachings of Downes or to have added an ultrasonic agitator
adapted to produce flow agitation of electrolyte across a substrate surface
portion during electroplating in Tzanavaras according to alleged teachings
found by the Examiner in Ishibashi.
Notwithstanding the Examiner’s assertions, however, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner has not established an apparent reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have employed the disparate ultrasonic
degassing units (18) or the ultrasonic energy sender array (26), which are
taught by Downes for use in association with a pre-wetting tank for
eliminating gaseous medium present in a liquid inlet flow or remove residual
gaseous media (bubbles) from vias or holes in a printed circuit board/panel
structure prior to electroless plating of the board/structure in a subsequent
step in another tank or vessel, in the electroplating apparatus of Tzanavaras
for agitating electrolyte as recited in Appellants’ claims 6 and/or 16 (App.
Br. 17-22; Reply Br. 21-25; Downes, paras. 0021-0043).
Similarly, the Examiner has not established an apparent reason why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify the apparatus
of Tzanavaras which utilizes a rotating anode/ jet assembly that provides
high pressure jets of electrolyte in a direction that is normal to a facing
substrate by employing an ultrasonic generator therein for agitating
electrolyte as recited in Appellants’ claims 6 and/or 16 based on the
disparate teachings of Ishibashi with respect to the use of ultrasonic
generators in an electroplating apparatus wherein an electrolytic solution
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

11
containing bubbles is introduced into a bath in a rotary direction that is
opposite to the rotary direction that a long roller substrate is rotated in for
the purpose of irregularly deflecting bubbles and preventing the formation of
standing waves therein, which teachings of Ishibashi would appear to be
contraindicated for use in the apparatus of Tzanavaras, as is urged by
Appellants (App. Br. 25-29; Reply Br. 26-28; Ishibashi, col. 1, ll. 55-67, and
col. 2, l. 28 - col. 3, l. 49; Tzanavaras, col. 4, l. 25 – col. 5, l. 19).
Consequently, we reverse Rejections 3 and 4, as well as Rejections 5,
7, 9, and 11, which latter four rejections similarly rely upon a proposed
combination of Tzanavaras with Downes or Ishibashi for allegedly
suggesting addition of a ultrasonic or megasonic agitator to the apparatus of
Tzanavaras. 2
As for Rejection 6 pertaining to independent claim 25 and certain
dependent claims, the Examiner acknowledges that Anderson does not teach
the one or more non-contacting wiping structures as required by these claims
(see, for example, claim 25) (Ans. 12). The Examiner relies on Anderson’s
teaching of boundary layer tripper flaps 49 for minimizing the thickness of a
boundary layer of solution adjacent a cathode; the Examiner urging that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have added the tripper flaps of Anderson to
the apparatus of Tzanavaras to minimize the boundary layer to permit an
increase in the current density that Tzanavaras can apply while relying on
the jets of Tzanavaras for turbulent flow of electrolyte across the front
surface of the substrate (Ans. 12-13).

2 The other references variously cited in these latter four rejections
pertaining to certain rejected claims are employed for other features set forth
therein, not the ultrasonic or megasonic agitator required by the rejected
claims.
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

12
However, and for reasons stated by Appellants, there is no apparent
reason or direction that has been identified by the Examiner that would have
led one of ordinary skill in the art to use the radially extending flexible flaps
49 of Anderson, which patent is directed to metal recovery (e.g., silver) from
metal bearing solutions and uses a cylindrical cathode 31, in the apparatus of
Tzanavaras. Nor has the Examiner fairly articulated how such flaps would
have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art for use in Tzanavaras
in a manner that would have led to the provision of the flaps as one or more
non-contacting wiping brushes, blades, or pads corresponding to those
required by the rejected claims, including the blades, brushes, or pads being
adapted to produce a vigorous flow agitation of electrolyte sufficient for
limiting diffusion layer thickness and aiding in providing void -free filling of
a substrate opening as required by claim 25 (App. Br. 37-39; Reply Br.30-
31; Anderson, col. 3, l. 5 –col. 10, l. 25). As stated in KSR Int’l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), “‘[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’” (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Accordingly, we reverse rejection 6 and rejection 10, which latter
ground of rejection of claims 30 and 31similarly relies on Anderson for
teaching the same features of claim 25, from which rejected claims 30 and
31 ultimately depend.
As for the rejection of claims 1-5 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tzanavaras in view of Tsai and Calhoun (Rejection
8), Appellants have advanced several substantive arguments based on record
Appeal 2010-005666
Application 11/827,829

13
evidence that, absent any refutation by the Examiner appear to weigh against
the proposed combination of references presented for the first time by the
Examiner in the Answer as a new ground (Reply Br. 2-8). After all, it is
well settled that the question of obviousness must be approached while
taking into account all of the teachings of the prior art, including those raised
by Appellants in rebuttal.
On this appeal record, we are constrained to reverse this latter ground
of rejection.3

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

REVERSED

tc/sld

3 The aforementioned reasoning respecting Rejection 8 provides additional
reason for our reversal of Rejections 9-11.