Ex Parte Horsky et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

11759768 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111759,768 0610712007
27160 7590 03/23/2016
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
(C/O PATENT ADMINISTRATOR)
2900 K STREET NW, SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5118
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas N. Horsky
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.
211843-00078 6844
EXAMINER
SMITH, BRADLEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2817
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
W ashington.PatentAdministrator@Kattenlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS N. HORSKY and
DALE C. JACOBSON
Appeal2014-003859
Application 11/759,768
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003859
Application 11/759,768
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-23, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of forming a shallow junction in a
semiconductor substrate comprising the steps of:
(a) producing a volume of gas phase molecules of
carborane defining carborane cluster molecules;
(b) transporting said carborane gas phase molecules to
the ionization chamber of an ion source;
( c) ionizing the carborane cluster molecules to form
carborane cluster ions; and
( d) creating an amorphous layer in said semiconductor
substrate;
( e) doping said amorphous layer in said semiconductor
layer with a dopant species to create a shallow junction;
(f) co-implanting a species other than the dopant species
to mitigate end-of range defects in said semi-conductor
substrate;
(g) wherein steps ( d), ( e) and (f) are accomplished by
accelerating said carborane cluster ions into a semiconductor
substrate; and
(h) annealing said semiconductor substrate to activate
said dopant species.
2
Appeal2014-003859
Application 11/759,768
Horsky
Hatem
Arevalo
Hatem
Prior Art
US 2006/0097193 Al
US 2007/0178678 Al
US 2008/0108208 Al
US 2008/0105828 Al
Examiner's Rejections
May 11, 2006
Aug.2,2007
May 8, 2008
May 8, 2008
Claims 1--4, 7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arevalo.
Claims 5, 8, 11-14, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Arevalo and Horsky.
Claims 6, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arevalo and Hatem.
Claims 15-17 and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Arevalo and Appellants' Admitted Prior Art.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 1 recites performing steps of creating an amorphous layer,
doping the amorphous layer, and co-implanting a species, where each of
these steps is performed "by accelerating said carborane cluster ions into a
semiconductor substrate." Appellants contend paragraph 39 of Arevalo
teaches doping and co-implanting in two separate steps. Reply Br. 2-3.
However, the scope of claim 1 does not require doping and co-implanting in
3
Appeal2014-003859
Application 11/759,768
a single step. Rather, claim 1 requires the doping and co-implanting to be
"accomplished by accelerating said carborane cluster ions into a
semiconductor substrate," but is silent on the number of steps taken to
accomplish doping and co-implanting. Appellants' contention is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Even if we did read claim 1 to require doping and co-implanting
simultaneously, the Examiner finds paragraph 40 of Arevalo teaches doping
and co-implanting simultaneously. Ans. 11. Paragraph 40 of Arevalo
teaches that selecting a carborane feed material molecule causes the co-
implant and dopant atoms to be simultaneously implanted. Appellants have
not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's
finding that paragraph 40 teaches doping and co-implanting simultaneously,
using carborane ions.
Appellants also contend that the pre-amorphization step of Arevalo is
a separate step performed with germanium or silicon, not carborane. App.
Br. 7-8. Appellants' contention is inconsistent with paragraphs 30, 44, 45,
and Figure 3 of Arevalo, which teach the pre-amorphization implantation
and the co-implant steps may be merged into one using a carborane
molecular ion beam. Appellants' contention that creating an amorphous
layer with carborane ions is unknown in the prior art is also inconsistent with
page 26, lines 20-21 of Appellants' Specification 1, which discloses "large
molecular ions, such as [ carborane] are known to amorphize the silicon."
1 Although the paragraph on page 26 of Appellants' Specification under the
heading "Amorphization for Channeling Control" is labeled paragraph 49,
the paragraph numbering in Appellants' Specification loses sequential order
on pages 17, 20, 21, and 28. We are unable to determine accurate numbers
for the paragraphs in Appellants' Specification. In particular, we are unable
4
Appeal2014-003859
Application 11/759,768
We sustain the rejections of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-23 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(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
to verify Appellants' mapping of claim limitations to corresponding support
in Appellants' Specification. See App. Br. 5. In the event of further
prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether Appellants'
Specification provides written description support for the claimed invention
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
5