Ex Parte deVilliers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 16, 2018

12125725 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2018)

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.
12/125,725 05/22/2008 Anton deVilliers MI22-3662 5041
21567 7590
Wells St. John P.S.
601 W. Main Avenue
Suite 600
Spokane, WA 99201
01/16/2018 EXAMINER
RAYMOND, BRITTANY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1722
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2018 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTON deVILLIERS1
Appeal 2017-003425
Application 12/125,725
Technology Center 1700
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—14 and 16—20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
Appellant claims a method of forming structures comprising: forming
a radiation-imageable material (20) over a semiconductor substrate (12);
photolithographically patterning the radiation-imageable material into
separated features (22, 24, and 26) having gaps therebetween; forming a
1 Micron Technology, Inc., is identified as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003425
Application 12/125,725
second material (40) on the features and gaps wherein the second material
comprises an inorganic material (e.g., silicon or germanium) dispersed in a
cross-linkable organic composition; and treating the resulting assembly so as
to alter by cross-linking certain regions of the second material and to remove
the features and portions of the second material thereby leaving at least one
structure of the altered regions of the second material (independent claim 1,
Figs. 1—6; see also remaining independent claims 7, 16, and 19). The
structure may comprise a tube (dependent claim 13) or non-tubular pedestals
(dependent claim 14).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A method of forming structures, comprising:
forming a radiation-imageable material over a
semiconductor substrate;
photolithographically patterning the radiation-
imageable material into at least two separated features;
the separated features having one or more gaps
between them;
forming a second material over the at least two
separated features, the second material being directly
against the radiation imageable material, and across the one
or more gaps between the at least two separated features,
the second material comprising one or more components
dispersed in an organic composition that is cross-linkable
upon exposure to acid, the one or more components
consisting of inorganic material;
2
Appeal 2017-003425
Application 12/125,725
baking the features having the second material
thereover to release at least one substance which alters the
second material, the altering comprising forming crosslinks
within the organic composition; the baking transferring the
at least one substance from the features into regions of the
second material proximate the features to alter said regions
while leaving other regions of the second material non-
altered; the non-altered second material being selectively
removable relative to the altered second material, and the
features being selectively removable relative to the altered
material;
treating the semiconductor substrate to remove the
non-altered regions of the second material relative to the
altered regions of the second material, the treating retaining
portions of the altered regions of the second material along
the sidewalls and over the top of the features;
after the treating, removing portions of the altered
regions of the second material over the top of the features;
and
selectively removing the features relative to the
altered regions of the second material to leave at least one
structure of the altered regions of the second material.
App. Br. 17—18 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner rejects claims 1—12 and 16—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Subramanian et al. (US 6,383,952 Bl, iss.
May 7, 2002, hereinafter “Subramanian”) in view of Kondoh et al. (US
2005/0130068 Al, pub. June 16, 2005, hereinafter “Kondoh”) and Cheng et
3
Appeal 2017-003425
Application 12/125,725
al. (US 2009/0212016 Al, pub. Aug. 27, 2009, hereinafter “Cheng”). Final
Action 2-A.2
We sustain this rejection for the reasons given in the Final Action, the
Answer, and below.
The Examiner concludes, inter alia, that it would have been obvious
to provide the cross-linkable organic composition (i.e., RELACS polymer)
of Subramanian with a dispersed inorganic material such as silicon or
germanium in order to improve etch resistance in view of Cheng’s teaching
that such inorganic materials enhance the etch resistance of polymers. Id. at
4 (citing Cheng 168).
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion by
arguing that “there is no evidence that the inclusion of these components
[i.e., Cheng’s inorganic materials] in any cross-linkable material [including
the cross-linkable RELACS of Subramanian] would confer the improved
etch resistance to any material other than the polymer materials disclose[d]
by Cheng.” App. Br. 13.
In a prior appeal, Appellant presented a corresponding argument
against this same obviousness conclusion. In a Decision (dated January 26,
2 Appellant does not present separate arguments specifically directed to the
dependent claims addressed in this rejection (App. Br. 10-15). Therefore,
these dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent
claims of which claim 1 is representative.
4
Appeal 2017-003425
Application 12/125,725
2015, “Dec.”), we found this prior-appeal argument to be unpersuasive
“because Appellant fails to embellish it with an explanation why the
inorganic components of Cheng would not be expected to provide etch
resistance to the cross-linkable organic RELACS material of Subramanian.”
Dec. 4—5. We explained in our prior Decision that “[bjased on the record
before us, one having ordinary skill in this art reasonably would have
expected that Cheng’s inorganic components would provide Subramanian’s
cross-linkable material with the desirable quality of etch resistance.” Id. at
5.
For analogous reasons, the above quoted argument in the current
appeal lacks persuasive merit. Specifically, Appellant once again fails to
embellish this argument with any scientific rationale or evidence showing
that the inorganic components of Cheng, while providing etch resistance to
Cheng’s polymers, would not be reasonably expected to provide etch
resistance to Subramanian’s cross-linkable RELACS polymer. As a
consequence, the record before us continues to reflect that an artisan would
have provided the RELACS polymer of Subramanian with Cheng’s
inorganic components based on a reasonable expectation of achieving
improved etch resistance. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he expectation of success need only be
reasonable, not absolute.”).
The Examiner also rejects claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Subramanian in view of Kondoh and Cheng and further
5
Appeal 2017-003425
Application 12/125,725
in view of Nozaki et al. (US 2007/0224537 Al, pub. Sept. 27, 2007,
hereinafter “Nozaki”). Final Action 4—5.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to have
formed tubular or pedestal cross-linked patterns [as required by claims 13
and 14] in the process of Subramanian, Kondoh and Cheng, as suggested by
Nozaki, because Nozaki teaches that a cross[-]linking process can be used to
form differently shaped patterns, depending on what is desired in the final
product.” Id. at 5.
Appellant contends that this rejection is improper because “no
motivation is provided for the actual ‘shape’ recited in claim[s] 13 and 14.”
App. Br. 16.
Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive because it is based on an
inaccurate premise. The Examiner expressly finds that Nozaki teaches or
would have suggested the tubular and pedestal shapes of claims 13 and 14
(Final Action 5), and Appellant does not contest this finding. Based on this
finding, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to form
such tubular or pedestal shapes or patterns in the modified process of
Subramanian “depending on what is desired in the final product.” Id.
Therefore, contrary to the premise of Appellant’s contention, the Examiner
explains with reasonable clarity that an artisan would have been motivated to
provide a tubular or pedestal shape as claimed based on the desire for such a
shape in the final product of Subramanian’s modified process.
6
Appeal 2017-003425
Application 12/125,725
For this reason, we also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claims 13 and 14.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7