Ex Parte LaVoie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2016

13224240 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/224,240 09/01/2011 Adrien La Voie
83422 7590 08/11/2016
Weaver Austin Villeneuve & Sampson - LAMR/NOVL
P.O. BOX 70250
OAKLAND, CA 94612-0250
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.
NOVLP428/ NVLS003687 9013
EXAMINER
TIJNGE, BRYAN R.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2897
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2016 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):
USPTO@wavsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADRIEN LAVOIE and MANDY AM SRIRAM
Appeal2015-000809
Application 13/224,240
Technology Center 2800
Before N. WHITNEY. WILSON, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
JULIA HEANEY Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 request review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-9, 13-30, 32, and 35-52
of Application 13/224,240. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to deposition of doped dielectric
films onto semiconductor substrates. Br. 1.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Lam Research Corp. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-000809
Application 13/224,240
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal
Brief, is representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of depositing a nitrogen and/or carbon doped
dielectric film stack on a substrate surface in a
reaction chamber, the method comprising:
depositing a first dielectric portion of the dielectric
film stack by a process comprising two or more cycles of
dielectric deposition, each cycle comprising:
(a) introducing a dielectric film precursor into the
reaction chamber under conditions allowing the precursor
to adsorb onto the substrate surface;
(b) thereafter purging the precursor from the
reaction chamber while the precursor remains adsorbed
on the substrate surface;
( c) exposing the substrate surface to plasma to
drive a reaction of the dielectric film precursor on the
substrate surface to form a portion of the dielectric film
stack;
forming a first nitrogen and/or carbon rich portion of the
dielectric film stack after depositing the first dielectric portion,
by a process comprising:
( d) introducing a carbon and/or nitrogen-
containing dopant species, not introduced during (a)-(c),
into the reaction chamber under conditions allowing the
dopant species to contribute nitrogen and/or carbon to the
partially-formed dielectric film stack;
depositing a second dielectric portion of the dielectric
film stack after depositing the first nitrogen and/or carbon rich
portion, by a process comprising two or more cycles of
dielectric deposition, each cycle comprising (a)-(c); and
forming a second nitrogen and/or carbon rich portion of
the dielectric film stack after depositing the second dielectric
portion, by a process comprising ( d);
2
Appeal2015-000809
Application 13/224,240
wherein after deposition of the dielectric film stack, the
nitrogen and/or carbon concentration in any of the first or
second nitrogen and/or carbon rich portions of the stack is
greater than the nitrogen and/or carbon concentration in any of
the first or second dielectric portions of the stack.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Matsuura US 2007/0010071 Al Jan. 11, 2007
("Matsuura")
Chou, et al. US 6,930,060 B2 Aug. 16, 2005
("Chou")
Dussarrat US 2009/0075490 Al Mar. 19, 2009
("Dussarrat")
Wan, et al. US 7 ,629,267 B2 Dec. 8, 2009
("Wan")
Honda US 2009/0039349 Al Feb. 12,2009
("Honda")
l\.~<;1f~m;~hlf<;1 pf <;Jl TT'! ')() 1 1 /() 1 -'\Q')()') A 1 T11nP 1() ')()11
_l._T_.LlA-1.UU-U..L..L..Ll.lA-' VI. lA-..Le '-...lk.I ._,V_._ _I_/ V_I_..//._,V._, 1 .1.._I_ VU-..L..LV -JV' ._,V_._ _._
("Matsushita")
Nemani, et al. US 2009/0208880 Al Aug. 20, 2009
("Nemani")
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 2--4 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
2. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 16, 17, 23, 24, 28-30, 32, 39, 40, and 45-52 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Matsuura and Chou.
3
Appeal2015-000809
Application 13/224,240
3. Claims 2--4, 18-20, 25-27, and 41--43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Matsuura, Chou,
and Dussarrat.
4. Claims 13-15 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Matsuura, Chou, and Wan.
5. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Matsuura, Chou, and Honda.
6. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Matsuura, Chou, and Matsushita.
7. Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Matsuura, Chou, and Nemani.
DISCUSSION
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellants do not present argument against the indefiniteness
rejection. App. Br. 5. Accordingly, we summarily affirm Rejection 1.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants present one set of arguments for independent claims 1 and
24 and do not present argument for the dependent claims. App. Br. 5. We
limit our discussion to claims 1 and 24. The dependent claims stand or fall
with the claims from which they depend. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2013).
Matsuura discloses a multi-cycle deposition process for forming a
silicon oxynitride dielectric film on a substrate in a reaction chamber.
Matsuura i-fi-19-32, 109. Each cycle includes three stages (STI: Adsorption
of dichlorosilane; ST2: Oxidizing; and ST3: Nitriding) which are repeated in
sequence to form a thin film of silicon oxynitride in each respective cycle, to
4
Appeal2015-000809
Application 13/224,240
arrive at a film having a target thickness. Id. i-fi-182-109. Matsuura teaches
repeating the cycle in the range of 50-400 times (i-f 115). The Examiner
acknowledges that Matsuura's method, unlike the method of Appellants'
claim 1, includes a nitriding step (ST3) in each cycle, whereas "the claimed
invention carries out steps (a}-(c) two or more times before step (d)." Ans.
2.
Chou discloses forming a gate dielectric film on a substrate within a
reaction chamber by a process of atomic layer deposition. Chou 1 :7-11.
Atomic layer deposition allows for controlling both nitrogen content and
distribution; the order and composition of precursor gasses pulsed into the
chamber is selected for the desired nitrogen content and profile in the
resultant layer. Id. at 6:8-11, 57-66. Chou discloses two examples of
precursor pulsing sequences which, by repeating cycles of deposition,
deposit a layered film having alternating portions of high and low nitrogen
content. Id. at7:6-11; 9:46-48. The Examiner determines that in view of
Chou's teaching of depos1tmg multiple silicon and oxygen layers prior to
introducing nitrogen in exemplary sequence "OSiOSiOSiNSiNSiN" (id. at
7:6-7), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
modify Matsuura's process by repeating steps STl and ST2 prior to
introducing nitrogen, in order to prevent nitrogen pile up at an interface
between the dielectric and substrate, as taught by Chou. Ans. 3 (citing Chou
7:6-10). The Examiner further determines that, regardless of whether Chou
suggests repeating the "OSiOSiOSiNSiNSiN" sequence, Matsuura's
disclosure of repeating steps ST1-ST3 multiple times (Matsuura i182) would
suggest, in view of Chou, repeating steps STl and ST2 multiple times for
each iteration of ST3, inherently resulting in a film of alternating
concentrations of nitrogen. Ans. 3.
5
Appeal2015-000809
Application 13/224,240
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not established prima facie
obviousness of claims 1 and 24 because the claims recite "at least two
dielectric cycles (steps (a) through ( c)) are performed first, prior to the
dopant contributing operation (step (d)), and therefore the dopant (e.g.,
nitrogen) contributing operation isn't performed during (or immediately
following) each cycle of dielectric deposition." App. Br. 7-8. Appellants
base this argument on their contention that Chou does not teach repeating
the pulse sequence "OSiOSiOSiNSiNSiN" but rather only teaches repeating
the pulse sequence "OSiNSiOSiN" (which would not read on claims 1 and
24 because it does not recite two cycles of dielectric deposition prior to
introduction of nitrogen). App. Br. 9.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it fails to take into
consideration all that Chou would have suggested to a person of ordinary
skill in the art. As the Examiner correctly finds, Chou teaches repeating a
sequence until the film is completely deposited; Chou does not restrict its
teaching to the "OSiNSiOSiN" sequence. Ans. 4 (citing Chou Fig. 5, 9:46-
48). Appellants' argument that Chou's Fig. 5 is logically inconsistent with
the "OSiOSiOSiNSiNSiN" sequence is not supported by Fig. 5 itself, which
the Examiner notes shows a sequence of four pulses that would result in at
least eight pulses when repeated, i.e. more than the seven pulses of the
"OSiNSiOSiN" sequence. Ans. 4. Further, it was proper for the Examiner
to rely on the common knowledge and sense of a person of ordinary skill in
the art, in determining that repetition of steps, as disclosed by both Matsuura
and Chou, would have been obvious to apply to the entire context of Chou,
particularly in view of Chou's teaching of tailoring nitrogen content and
profile in the deposited layers in order to prevent nitrogen pile up. Ans. 3, 5;
Chou 7:6-10. Thus Appellants' argument that narrowly focuses on whether
6
Appeal2015-000809
Application 13/224,240
Chou explicitly discloses repeating the "OSiOSiOSiNSiNSiN" pulse
sequence does not persuade us that the Examiner reversibly erred in the
determination of obviousness.
We have considered Appellants' remaining arguments and, for the
reasons given by the Examiner, find none that warrant reversal of the
appealed rejections. Cf In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1294
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-9, 13-30, 32, and 35-52.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7