Ex Parte Ivanov et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 14, 2010

10462343 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte IGOR C. IVANOV, WEIGUO ZHANG,
and ARTUR KOLICS
____________

Appeal 2010-000043
Application 10/462,343
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: April 15, 2010
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHUNG K. PAK, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 23, 25-28, and 47-
49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 23, 26, and 47 are illustrative:

Appeal 2010-000043
Application 10/462,343

23. A method for processing a microelectronic topography,
comprising:

selectively depositing a second dielectric layer upon a first dielectric layer of
the microelectronic topography, wherein the first dielectric is arranged
adjacent to and coplanar with a first metal layer of the microelectronic
topography, and wherein the second dielectric layer comprises a
hydrophobic material selected from a group comprising halogenated
silanes and polymeric silanes;

exposing the microelectronic topography to deionized water to strengthen
the adherence of the second dielectric layer to the first dielectric layer;
and

subsequently selectively depositing a second metal layer upon the first metal
layer.

26. The method of claim 23, further comprising removing the
second dielectric layer subsequent to the step of selectively depositing the
second metal layer.

47. The method of claim 23, wherein the step of exposing the
microelectronic topography to deionized water is conducted during the step
of selectively depositing the second dielectric layer.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness (Ans. 2):
Hu 6,417,118 B1 Jul. 09, 2002
Takagi 6,440,844 B1 Aug. 27, 2002

Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method for processing a
microelectronic topography. The method comprises selectively depositing a
second dielectric layer upon a first dielectric layer. The first dielectric layer
is arranged adjacent to and coplanar with a first metal layer. The second
dielectric layer comprises a hydrophobic material of either halogenated
silanes or polymeric silanes. The topography is exposed to deionized water
2
Appeal 2010-000043
Application 10/462,343

to strengthen the adherence between the first and second dielectric layers.
Also, a second metal layer is deposited upon the first metal layer subsequent
to the treatment with deionized water.
Appealed claims 23, 25-28, and 47-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takagi in view of Hu.
In addition to independent claim 23, Appellants provide separate
arguments only for claims 26 and 47. Accordingly, claims 25, 27, 28, 48
and 49 stand or fall together with claim 23.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we agree with the Examiner that
the subject matter of claims 23, 25, 27, 28, 48 and 49 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103.
However, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established
the prima facie obviousness of claims 26 and 47. Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 23, 25, 27, 28, 48 and 49
but reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 47. Our reasoning
follows.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual determination that
Takagi, like Appellants, discloses a method for processing a microelectronic
topography comprising depositing a second dielectric layer upon a first
dielectric layer which is arranged adjacent to and coplanar with a first metal
layer, wherein the second dielectric layer comprises one of the recited
compounds, and a second metal layer is subsequently deposited on the first
metal layer. The principal argument advanced by Appellants is that Takagi
does not teach the selective deposition of the second dielectric layer and the
selective deposition of the second metal layer but, rather, teaches uniform
3
Appeal 2010-000043
Application 10/462,343

deposition of the second dielectric layer and metal layer followed by
subsequent masking and removal of selected areas. However, we are in
complete agreement with the Examiner that the claim language “selectively
depositing” does not exclude, but encompasses, a process wherein insulative
and metal layers are selectively deposited on a substrate by first uniformly
depositing the layers and then removing portions thereof to produce a
selective deposition. Appellants’ arguments notwithstanding, it has not been
established on this record that the term “selectively depositing” is known in
the art to preclude uniform deposition followed by selective removal of a
material.
Appellants maintain that the Specification, at page 1, lines 14-16,
provides a definition for the claim language at issue which excludes uniform
deposition. The Specification reads “[a]n advantage of an electroless
deposition process is that it can be selective, i.e., the material can be
deposited only onto areas that demonstrate appropriate chemical properties.”
(Spec. 1.) However, this disclosure only sets forth that electroless
deposition is one technique for providing a coating on only selective areas of
a substrate. It does not provide a definition for the claim language
“selectively depositing”. Uniform deposition of a material and its
subsequent selective removal also reasonably qualifies a selective deposition
of the material.
Appellants also refer us to the website Expert Consulting and Witness
Services for a definition of the term “selective deposition” as “deposition of
a material on a certain specific area” (see App. Br. 6, first full para.).
However, the specific website provided by Appellants did not produce a
match for the term “selective deposition”. Also, even accepting Appellants’
4
Appeal 2010-000043
Application 10/462,343

definition for the term does not, for the reason set forth above, exclude
uniform deposition followed by selective removal. Manifestly, selective
removal of a material that has been uniformly deposited results in
“deposition of a material on a certain specific area”.
Moreover, the techniques of coating only portions of a substrate, and
removing only certain portions of a uniformly deposited coating on a
substrate, were so notoriously well known at the time of filing the present
application that we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to select either of the known techniques
for providing the structure disclosed by Takagi.
Claim 26 calls for removal of the second dielectric layer subsequent to
the step of selectively depositing the second metal layer. The Examiner
states “[w]hile the Examiner acknowledges the fact that the second dielectric
layer (6) is not removed [by Takagi], the Examiner has taken the position
that this would have been within the skill of one practicing in the art
depending upon the desired end product” (Ans. 5, last para.). However, this
general statement by the Examiner does not address the non-obviousness of
removing the second dielectric layer from the Takagi article, as emphasized
by Appellants. In particular, the Examiner’s statement does not refute the
following argument presented by Appellants:
The end product desired by Takagi is provided by burying
the tungsten plug 13 within the second dielectric layer 6
before the upper wiring layer 15 is formed thereon (Takagi –
col. 4, lines 20-60). Removing the second dielectric layer 6
after formation of the conductive plug 13 would not result in
a “conductive plug including a buried conductor of tungsten”
and, thus, would not provide the end product desired by
Takagi.

5
Appeal 2010-000043
Application 10/462,343

(Reply Br. 4, first para.).
Likewise, the Examiner has not established the obviousness of the
claim 47 recitation of exposing the topography to deionized water during the
step of selectively depositing the second dielectric layer. The Examiner has
presented no factual support for the conclusory statement that “one skilled in
the art at the time the invention was made would have had a reasonable
expectation of achieving similar success regardless of when the treatment
with deionized water took place absent a showing of unexpected results.”
(Ans. 6, second para.). The Examiner’s statement does not address
Appellants’ reasoned argument that
[b]y requiring confirmation of a complete chemical reaction
(from hydrophilic to hydrophobic bonds) before the wafer is
rinsed with deionized water, the teachings of Hu strengthen
Appellants[’] contention on pages 8-9 of the Appeal Brief
that exposing the low-k dielectric layer 26 to deionized water
before the hydrophobic bonds are fully formed is likely to
introduce moisture into the film

(Reply Br. 5, first para.).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 23, 25, 27, 28, 48 and 49 is sustained, and the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 26 and 47 is reversed. Consequently, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (2008).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

6
Appeal 2010-000043
Application 10/462,343

ssl

DAFFER MCDANIEL LLP
P.O. BOX 684908
AUSTIN, TX 78768
7