Ex Parte Hafezi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2012

11373635 (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.
11/373,635 03/09/2006 Hooman Hafezi APPM/ 8241
P02/PPC/ECP/CK
7323
44257 7590 07/26/2012
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP - - APPM/TX
3040 POST OAK BOULEVARD, SUITE 1500
HOUSTON, TX 77056
EXAMINER
VAN, LUAN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1724
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2012 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 HOOMAN HAFEZI, ARON ROSENFELD, ZHI-WEN SUN,
HUA CHUNG, and LEI ZHU
____________

Appeal 2010-011014
Application 11/373,635
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011014
Application 11/373,635

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 5-7, 9-16, 31, 39-40, and 42-44. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants’ invention is generally directed to a method for depositing
a copper seed layer onto a barrier layer substrate that is an alloy of a group
VIII metal. (Spec. 6). Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and is reproduced below:
1. A method of processing a substrate, comprising:
providing a dielectric layer on a substrate;
forming features into a surface of the dielectric layer;
depositing an electrically continuous barrier/adhesion
layer onto the surface of the dielectric layer, wherein the
barrier/adhesion layer comprises an alloy, wherein at least 50
atomic % of the alloy comprises a metal selected from the
group consisting of ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, cobalt,
nickel, osmium, iridium, platinum and combinations thereof
and wherein the balance of the alloy is selected from the group
consisting of tantalum, titanium, zirconium, hafnium, niobium,
molybdenum, tungsten and combinations thereof;
conditioning a surface of the electrically continuous
barrier/adhesion layer by cathodically pre-treating the
barrier/adhesion layer in an acid-containing bath; and
directly plating a first copper layer onto the
barrier/adhesion layer, the first copper layer being an
electrically continuous layer, wherein the process of directly
plating a first copper layer comprises:
placing the barrier/adhesion layer into contact with a
copper solution, wherein the copper solution comprises copper
ions; and
applying a first plating waveform to the barrier/adhesion
layer.

Appeal 2010-011014
Application 11/373,635

3
The Examiner maintains and Appellants request review the following
rejections from the final office action. (Ans. 3-12; App. Br. 9):
I. Claims 1, 9, 11-16, 31, 39-40, and 42-44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Sun (U.S. Patent Application Publication
2006/0063375 A1 published Mar. 23, 2006) and Baskaran (U.S. Patent
Application Publication 2004/0072419 A1 published Apr. 15, 2004).

II. Claims 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Sun, Baskaran and Lore (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0072682
A1 published Apr. 7, 2005).

III. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Sun, Baskaran and Kailasam (U.S. Patent 7,341,946 B2 issued Mar. 11,
2008).

OPINION
After thorough review of the respective positions provided by
Appellants and the Examiner, we AFFIRM for the reasons presented by the
Examiner and add the following for emphasis.

Rejection I1
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner’s reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as the
Examiner’s cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by
Appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our
own in sustaining the rejection of record, and we add the following.

1 Appellants have not presented substantive arguments addressing each of
the rejected claims 1, 9, 11-16, 31, 39-40 and 42-44. We select claim 1 as
representative of these claims.
Appeal 2010-011014
Application 11/373,635

4
It is not disputed that Sun teaches a barrier formed from Ru-Ta-N,
which differs from the claimed invention, which requires Ru-Ta. Appellants
argue that it would not have been obvious to exclude N because it is a key
factor in obtaining an effective barrier layer. (App. Br. 11; citing Sun 0005).
The Examiner found that Sun discloses the N content in the barrier region
causes the atomic structure to pack tightly and thereby act as an effective
barrier (Ans. 4; Sun, 0030). The Examiner concluded that it would have
been obvious to have omitted the N in the integrated layer, if the dense
packing structure is not desired or if the structure of Ru-Ta is sufficiently
effective as a barrier layer without the dense packing structure of N. (Ans.
4). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Appellants have not specifically
addressed the Examiner’s position regarding the function of N as providing a
dense packing structure.
Appellants also argue that Sun discloses a metal nitride would be a
better choice as a diffusion barrier. (App. Br. 12) This argument is also
unavailing because the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be
preferred is not controlling in an obviousness determination, since all
disclosures of the prior art must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v.
Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (quoting In re
Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)).
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14) regarding Baskaran have been
fully considered. These arguments are not persuasive because they do not
address the reason the Examiner cited Baskaran.
The Examiner properly found that it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the percentage of ruthenium to
improve the conductivity of the alloy layer. (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner
Appeal 2010-011014
Application 11/373,635

5
found that Sun discloses ruthenium is nearly twice as conductive as tantalum
(id. at 4; Sun, 0004). It is well established that optimization of a prior art
range flows from the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon
what is already generally known. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348,
1366-68 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
For the reasons provided above and those presented by the Examiner,
we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 9, 11-16, 31, 39-40, and 42-44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection II
Appellants argue that Lore’s general disclosure of the principle of
cathodic treatment of metals, without more, does not provide an adequate
suggestion or motivation automatically to the treat transition metal alloys
such as ruthenium-tantalum. (App. Br. 16).
Appellants’ argument is unavailing. The Examiner found that Lore
discloses a cathodic electrolytic cleaning process for removing oxides from
the surface of metal. (Ans. 10-11). Appellants have not adequately
explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that
Lore’s disclosure of the cathodic treatment of metals would have been
unsuitable for the treatment of transition metal alloys such as ruthenium-
tantalum to remove oxides.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-011014
Application 11/373,635

6
Rejection III
Appellants’ arguments addressing this rejection are not persuasive for
the reasons provided above and those presented by the Examiner. (App. Br.
17). The Examiner relies on Kailasam for describing a process of removing
oxides and contaminants from the surface of the barrier layer. (Ans. 11-12).
Appellants have not adequately explained why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have expected that Kailasam’s process of removing
oxides and contaminants would have been unsuitable for the treatment of
Sun’s structure.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The rejections of claims 1, 5-7, 9-16, 31, 39-40, and 42-44 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
bar