Ex Parte England

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

13247769 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/247,769
21567 7590
Wells St. John P.S.
601 W. Main Avenue
Suite 600
Spokane, WA 99201
09/28/2011
03/23/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Luke G. England
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.
MI22-4899 7142
EXAMINER
CHUNG, HO-SUNG
ARTUNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2018 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 LUKE G. ENGLAND 1
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/24 7, 7 692
Technology Center 1700
Before: TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH,
and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1-11, 13, 15, and 17-36. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.
1 Luke G. England is the identified inventor of the appealed application.
2 According to Appellant, Micron Technology, Inc., is the real party in
interest. See App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
Appellant's invention relates generally to methods of forming through
substrate vias. (Spec. i-f 1 ). Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the principal Appeal
Brief.
1. A method of forming through-substrate vias, comprising:
forming through-substrate via openings into a substrate through
a first side of the substrate;
lining sidewalls of the through-substrate via openings with
dielectric material;
separately electrodepositing copper and at least one element
other than copper to fill a remaining volume of through-
substrate via openings;
annealing the electrodeposited copper and the at least one other
element in an inert atmosphere to form a homogenous alloy of
the copper and the at least one other element directly against the
dielectric, and
forming conductive through-substrate via structures comprising
the alloy; and
planarizing the alloy to be level with the first side of the
substrate.
Appellant (see generally App. Br.) requests review of the following
rejections:
I. Claims 1-5, 9, 13, 15, and 17-19, 21-22, 24--25, 27-29, and
36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of over Bonifield (U.S.
2009/0278238 Al; pub. Nov. 12, 2009) (hereinafter
"Bonifield") in view of Suzuki (U.S. 2008/0081473 Al;
pub. Apr. 3, 2008), Braeckelmann et al. (U.S. 6,218,302 Bl;
iss. Apr. 17, 2001) (hereinafter "Braeckelmann") and
2
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
alternatively Wang et al. (U.S. 2004/0253810 Al; pub. Dec.
16, 2004) (hereinafter "Wang"). (Final Act. 2-17).
II. Claims 6-8, 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bonifield, Suzuki, Braeckelmann, and
alternatively Wang, and further in view of Schaer (U.S.
2,859,158; iss. Nov. 4, 1958). (Final Act. 17-18).
III. Claims 20, 23 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bonifield, Suzuki, Braeckelmann, and
alternatively Wang, and further in view of Lee et al., (U.S.
2006/0289999 Al; pub. Dec. 28, 2006) (hereinafter "Lee").
(Final Act. 18-20).
IV. Claims 30-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bonifield, Suzuki, Braeckelmann, and
alternatively Wang, and Schaer. (Final Act. 20-23).
OPINION
After consideration of Appellant's arguments and evidence and the
Examiner's position in the Final Office Action and Answer, we affirm the
anticipation and obviousness determinations.
The complete statement of the rejections on Appeal appear in the
Final Office Action. (Final Act. 2-23).
3
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
Re} ection 13
Upon consideration of the evidence in this Appeal record in light of
the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant, we
determine that Appellant has not identified reversible error in the
Examiner's rejections. We sustain Rejection I for the reasons provided by
the Examiner. We add the following.
The Examiner found Bonifield teaches a method of fabricating
through-substrate vias comprising electrodepositing copper to fill the
volume of through-substrate via openings. (See Final Act. 3). The
Examiner found Bonifield depicts a flat upper surface and therefore suggests
planarizing the alloy to be level with the first side of the substrate. (Final
Act. 3; Fig. 1 ). The Examiner found Bonifield failed to teach
electrodepositing at least one element other than copper and subsequent
annealing thereof. (Final Act. 3--4). The Examiner found Suzuki teaches
electrodeposition of copper and at least one other element, where the alloy
formed by anneal directly against the dielectric. (Final Act. 4 ). The
Examiner found Suzuki describes planarizing the alloy to be level with the
first side of the substrate (Final Act. 4 ). The Examiner found Braeckelmann
teaches the sequential electrodepositing depositing of copper (seed layer 42)
and at least one other element (conductive film 43, e.g., zinc), where the
alloy formed by anneal is directly against the dielectric. (Final Act. 4--5
(citing Braeckelmann col. 4:25-34, 5: 1--40, and Fig. 5) ). The Examiner
3 Appellant's arguments are directed to independent claims 1, 17 and 25.
(App. Br. 11-16). We limit our discussion to independent claims 1, 17 and
25 which we select as representative of the rejected claims.
4
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
found Wang teaches the zinc may be deposited by PVD or electroplating.
(Final Act. 5).
The Examiner determined the cited prior art would have suggested to
a person of ordinary skill in the art the sequential depositing
electrodepositing of copper and at least one other element and subsequent
annealing thereof to form a homogeneous alloy. The Examiner also
determined it would have been obvious to plan arise to form substrate
utilizing chemical mechanical polishing. (Final Act. 5).
Appellant argues Bonifield does not suggest utilization of any copper
alloy and therefore does not suggest a copper alloy directly against the
dielectric or planarization of the copper alloy as required by the claimed
invention. (App. Br. 12). Appellant argues Bonifield and Suzuki fail to
suggest separate electrodepositions of copper and at least one other element,
where the alloy formed by anneal is directly against the dielectric and
planarization of the alloy. (App. Br. 13). Appellant argues Braeckelmann
discloses simultaneously depositing the at least one other element with
copper and therefore does not disclose individually electroplating each of the
two metals and subsequently annealing. (App. Br. 13). Appellant further
argues Braeckelmann fails to utilize a dielectric and therefore does not
disclose or suggest the recited alloy directly against the dielectric. (App. Br.
13). Appellant argues while Wang discloses a dielectric, Wang fails to
disclose individually electroplating each of copper and at least one other
element and subsequently annealing. (App. Br. 14).
On this record, including consideration of the arguments presented by
Appellant, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that
the combined teachings of Bonifield, Suzuki, Braeckelmann, and Wang
5
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed
method of making a through-substrate via as specified by the independent
claims. Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because they failed to
address the rejection as presented by the Examiner. The prior art cited by
the Examiner in the rejection establishes the separate electroplating
deposition of elements, the exclusion of a barrier layer between the dielectric
and an alloy, the annealing of the deposited elements to form an alloy and
subsequent planarization of the alloy was all known by persons of ordinary
skill in the art. Accordingly, we are the opinion that a person of ordinary
skill in the art routinely following the combined teachings of Bonifield,
Suzuki, Braeckelmann, and Wang would have reasonably arrived at the
claimed method of making through-substrate vias without recourse to
Appellant's Specification. See, e.g., KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 416 (2007) ("[W[hen a patent claims a structure already known in the
prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another
known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable
result."); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 567-68 (CCPA 1967) (Express
suggestion to interchange methods which achieve the same or similar results
is not necessary to establish obviousness.); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 985-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903---04 (Fed.
Cir. 1988) ("For obviousness under§ 103, all that is required is a reasonable
expectation of success.") (citations omitted); and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981) (" [T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.").
6
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
Appellant argues independent claims 17 and 25 are patentable for the
reasons presented when addressing independent claim 1. (App. Br. 14--15).
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of reversible for reasons set forth
above. Appellant further argues that Bonifield and Suzuki do not suggest
extending a portion of the via below the substrate surface as required by
independent claim 25. (App. Br. 15). Appellant's argument is without
persuasive merit because it is directed to subject matter that was known to
persons of ordinary skill in the art. Bonifield depicts removal of the
substrate from the distal end which allows exposure to the via. (Bonifield i-f
38; Fig. ID). Moreover, Appellant acknowledges in the Specification that
common through-substrate via openings are formed through a substrate by
removal of substrate material from the opposite side of the substrate from
which the via opening was formed to expose the conductive material. (Spec.
,-r 3 ).
Rejection II
Appellant does not argue separately the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 6-8, 10 and 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Bonifield, Suzuki, Braeckelmann, Wang and
Schaer. (App. Br. 17-18). Appellant relies on the same arguments
advanced in connection with independent claim 1 discussed supra.
Accordingly, based on the findings and reasoning set forth above,
Appellant has not established reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that a preponderance of the evidence leans heavily in favor of
the obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 6-8, 10 and 11 within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Re} ection III
7
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
Appellant does not argue separately the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 20, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combined disclosures of Bonifield, Suzuki, Braeckelmann, Wang and Lee.
(App. Br. 18). Appellant relies on the same arguments advanced in
connection with independent claims 17 and 25 discussed supra.
Accordingly, based on the findings and reasoning set forth above,
Appellant has not established reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that a preponderance of the evidence leans heavily in favor of
the obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 20, 23 and 26 within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection IV
Appellant does not argue separately the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 30-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Bonifield, Suzuki, Braeckelmann, Wang and Schaer. (App.
Br. 16-1 7). Appellant relies on the same arguments advanced in connection
with independent claim 25 discussed supra.
Accordingly, based on the findings and reasoning set forth above,
Appellant has not established reversible error in the Examiner's
determination that a preponderance of the evidence leans heavily in favor of
the obviousness of the subject matter recited in claims 30-35 within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSION
8
Appeal2017-001661
Application 13/247,769
For the reasons stated above, and the reasons presented by the
Examiner, we sustain the appealed rejections.
DECISION
The appealed rejections of claims 1-11, 13, 15, and 17-36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
AFFIRMED
9