Ex Parte Maleville et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2018

14625407 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/625,407 02/18/2015 Christophe Maleville
24247 7590 12/14/2018
TRASKBRITT, P.C.
P.O. BOX 2550
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110
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.
3356-12236.l(F03/0501CM 7407
F
EXAMINER
MAI,ANHD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2018 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):
USPTOMail@traskbritt.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHE MALEVILLE, ERIC NEYRET, and
NADIA BEN MOHAMED
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
1 In explaining our Decision, we cite to the Specification of February 18,
2015 ("Spec."), Final Office Action ofNovember 22, 2016 ("Final"),
Appeal Brief of May 12, 2017 ("Appeal Br."), Examiner's Answer of
October 12, 2017 ("Ans."), and Reply Brief of December 11, 2017 ("Reply
Br.").
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 and 12. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM, but we denominate our affirmance as involving a new
ground of rejection.
The claims are directed to an improvement in the SMAR TCUT®
process. The SMAR TCUT® process is a process of transferring a thin layer
of silicon from a donor substrate to a support substrate to produce a silicon-
on-insulator (SOI) structure. Spec. ,r,r 2-5. The process involves forming a
weakened zone in a donor substrate, bonding the donor substrate with the
weakened zone to the support substrate and separating the donor substrate at
the weakened zone to leave a thin layer of silicon on the support substrate.
The weakened zone is created in the donor substrate by implanting
atoms to a preset depth. Spec. ,r 3. Appellant's improvement resides in the
step of implanting: Appellant first implants helium and then implants
hydrogen in a combination of dosages that minimizes low-frequency surface
roughness. Spec. ,r 15. The structure resulting from Appellant's process,
which is also treated by rapid thermal annealing (RT A) to reduce high-
frequency roughness, is an SOI with a thin layer suitable for use in
microelectronic or optoelectronic application and that need not be treated by
CMP. Spec. ,r 32.
Claim 1, with the limitations at issue highlighted, is illustrative:
2 Appellant is the applicant, Soitec, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
1. A method for fabricating a microelectronic or
optoelectronic device using a semiconductor-on-insulator
(SeOI) structure, the method comprising:
forming a semiconductor-on-insulator (SeOI) structure,
forming the SeOI structure including:
implanting helium through a face of a donor substrate to
a controlled mean implantation depth within the donor
substrate, a dosage of the helium being in a range extending
from 0.9 x 1016 cm-2 to 1.5 x 1016 cm-2, and, after implanting the
helium, implanting hydrogen through the face of the donor
substrate to the controlled mean implantation depth within the
donor substrate, a dosage of the hydrogen being 0.9 x 1016 cm-2
or less, the implanted helium and hydrogen forming a
weakened zone within the donor substrate and defining a useful
layer between the weakened zone and the face of the donor
substrate;
bonding a support substrate to the face of the donor
substrate;
detaching the useful layer from a remainder of the donor
substrate along the weakened zone to form a structure that
includes the useful layer on the support substrate; and
after detaching the useful layer from the remainder of the
donor substrate, performing a rapid thermal annealing (R TA)
process on the useful layer and selecting conditions of the RT A
process to minimize high-frequency roughness as measured by
atomic force microscopy in swept squares of 1 x 1 µm2;
wherein an exposed surface of the useful layer has a low-
frequency roughness of 5 A or less as measured by atomic force
microscopy in swept squares of 10 x 10 µm2 upon completion
of the RT A process; and
processing the useful layer of the SeOI structure to form
a microelectronic or optoelectronic device without performing
either [sic] chemical-mechanical polishing on the useful layer
after detaching the useful layer from the remainder of the donor
3
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
substrate and prior to processing the useful layer of the SeOI
structure to form the microelectronic or optoelectronic device.
Appeal Br. 36-37 (claims appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner maintains the following rejections: 3
A. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as obvious over Aga4 in view of Agarwal5;
B. The rejection of claims 4--7 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Again view of Agarwal, and further in view ofNakajima6;
and
C. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Again view of Agarwal, and further in view ofKuwabara7.
OPINION
A. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Aga in view of Agarwal
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 as obvious over
Aga in view of Agarwal, we note that Appellant does not argue any claim
apart from the others. Appeal Br. 16-31. We select claim 1 as
representative for deciding the issues on appeal.
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 2-5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 ,r 2. Ans. 3.
4 Aga et al., US 6,846,718 Bl, issued January 25, 2005.
5 Agarwal et al., "Efficient production of silicon-on-insulator films by co-
implantation of He+ with H +," Applied Physics Letters 72, 1086 (1998).
6 JP 11-087668 A, published March 30, 1999.
7 Kuwabara et al., US 6,596,610 Bl, issued July 22, 2003.
4
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
Like Appellant, both Aga and Agarwal use the SMAR TCUT® process
to fabricate a semiconductor-on-insulator (SOI) structure. Aga col. 1, 11. 6-
20; Agarwal abstract.
The Examiner finds that Aga teaches all the features of the process of
claim 1 except that Aga does not explicitly disclose co-implanting helium
and hydrogen and the dosages. Final 7. The Examiner, thus, relies on
Agarwal as evidence that it would have been obvious to co-implant helium
and hydrogen at dosages within the range of claim 1 to form the weak zone.
Id.
Appellant contends that the Examiner reversibly erred because
Agarwal teaches away from implanting helium before hydrogen as required
by claim 1. Appeal Br. 21-26; Reply Br. 3-9.
Appellant has not persuaded us that Agarwal' s teachings rise to the
level of a teaching away. We determine that a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's finding of a suggestion within the prior art
for co-implanting the helium and hydrogen in the order claimed.
There is no dispute that it was known in the art to use either hydrogen
or helium, or a combination of both, in the implantation step to create the
blisters and bubbles required to create the weakened zone in the donor
substrate. Compare Final 5-8, and Ans. 3--4, with Appeal Br. 22-23, and
Reply Br. 3-9. Nor is there any dispute that Agarwal experimented with
implanting helium ions before hydrogen ions. Reply Br. 5.
Aga does not disclose any particular range of dosages for H+ or rare
gas ions. Aga produces wafers with SOI layers for use in heat treatment
tests where H+ was implanted at an energy of 100 keV at a dose of 8 x 1016
cm-2. Aga col. 12, 11. 50---51. Although Aga's dosage is much higher than
5
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
the 0.9 x 1016 cm-2 or less range of claim 1, according to Agarwal, "a
combination of H and He gas implants results in a synergistic effect that
allows the combined threshold dose for thin-film separation to be
significantly reduced." Agarwal p. 1086, col. 2, 11. 1--4. "Thus, a
combination of the two species is capable of reducing the critical total dose
below that which is necessary using either species alone." Agarwal p. 1087,
col. 1, 11. 7-9.
Agarwal' s entire disclosure is focused on finding the most efficient
process, i.e., the implantation process that uses the lowest total dose of
hydrogen combined with helium. According to Agarwal,
Based on our findings with blistering experiments we
have used a 7 .5 x 1015 cm-2 H implant followed by a 1 x 1016
cm-2 He implant to successfully produce thin SOI films by
wafer bonding, demonstrating that the total implantation dose
can be reduced to 1.75 x 1016 cm-2, less than 30% of the 6 x 1016
cm-2 dose necessary when using H alone.
Agarwal p. 1088, col. 1, last full para.
Appellant's argument that Agarwal teaches away hinges on the
following statement by Agarwal, which is based on a model of hydrogen and
helium blistering behavior:
Such a model, and a comparison of Figs. 3 (b) and 3 ( c ), predict
that He implantation before H would not be as efficient.
Additional experiments have confirmed this prediction; doses of
Hand He that are just above the threshold for blistering when
H was implanted first did not lead to blistering when He was
implanted first.
Agarwal, p. 1088, col. 1 ( emphasis added).
That "doses of H and He that are just above the threshold for
blistering when H was implanted first did not lead to blistering when He was
6
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
implanted first," is not a teaching away from using other higher dosages of
He first. Id. ( emphasis added).
First, the prior art as a whole indicates that either hydrogen or helium
or combinations of the two can be used to cause the required blistering. See
Aga col. 1, 11. 22--42 ( explaining that either hydrogen ions or rare gas ions
can be used); Agarwal p. 1086, col. 2 ( experimenting with hydrogen,
helium, and combinations of both to obtain blistering). In fact, Nakajima,
the reference the Examiner adds to reject dependent claims 4--7, provides
further evidence that it was known in the art to implant helium first.
Nakajima ,r,r 6-7 (teaching a helium first implant that led to a higher total
injection rate).
Second, performing routine experimentation to find the workable
ranges for a sequence in which helium is implanted first would have been
within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Given the teachings of Agarwal, the
total dosage would likely be higher than the 1.75 x 1015 cm-2 dosage of the
H/He implantation. But Agarwal' s teaching is not a "teaching away" in the
context of an obviousness analysis. "[J]ust because better alternatives exist
in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for
obviousness purposes." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2012).
The prior art as a whole provides a preponderance of evidence that
those of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of
success in obtaining the required blistering when implanting helium before
hydrogen at dosages arrived at through routine experimentation.
Appellant points out that the prior art does not disclose that
implanting helium before hydrogen affects roughness and they contend that
7
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
their dosage ranges are critical to obtain this unexpected result. Appeal Br.
30-31. Appellant cites to the Mohamed Declaration filed April 11, 2016 and
attached to the Appeal Brief. Appeal Br. ( evidence appendix).
First, we agree that the prior art cited by the Examiner does not
correlate the sequence and dosages of helium and hydrogen to surface
roughness. This fact tends to support the unexpected nature of the
correlation. But the conclusory statement must be supported by the specific
evidence showing the results. See Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs.,
Inc., 554 F.3d 1001, 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that conclusory
statements in the specification are not enough, specific evidence regarding
the result must be taken into account). Appellant's showing of unexpected
results, however, does not provide an adequate basis to support a legal
conclusion of unobviousness,
Mohamed declares that Figure 1 illustrates the unexpected results.
Deel. ,r 13. Figure 1 is a graph showing PSD-type roughness measurements
made in the center of four structures, SI, S2, S3, and S4. Spec. ,r 22; Deel.
,r 13. Mohamed declares that Curve 4 (C4) illustrates the roughness of the
S4 structure made by the known Aga method and the three other curves C 1,
C2, C3 illustrate the roughness of the structures of the claimed method.
Deel. ,r 13. But, in fact, only S3 was made using dosages within the ranges
of claim 1. The table below shows the dosages:
Claim 1 0.9-1.5 0.0-0.9
SI 0.7 0.9
8
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
S2 0.8
S3 0.9
S4 0.0
0.9
0.9
5.5
S3 uses the minimum possible helium dosage and the maximum
possible hydrogen dosage. Although curve C3 shows improved low-
frequency surface roughness as compared to C 1, C2, and C4, it does not
support criticality for dosages of helium up to 1.5 x 1016 cm-2 or for
hydrogen dosages below 0.9 x 1016 cm-2•
To support a showing of criticality, Appellant must show the entirety
of the range is critical for achieving the unexpected result. See In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1990) ("The law is replete with
cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art
is some range or other variable within the claims .... [ and] in such a
situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical,
generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range.") (emphasis added); In re Harris, 409 F.3d
1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Harris needed to show results covering the
scope of the claimed range").
Mohamed declares that "[h]elium dosages below and above the
claimed range of 0.9 x 1016 cm-2 to 1.5 x 1016 cm-2 result in increased surface
roughness compared to the claimed helium dosage range." Deel. ,r 14, but
"[i]t is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual
evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements in the specification does
not suffice." In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed.Cir.1995) (quoting In re De
9
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.Cir.1984)). Appellant has not presented the
necessary factual evidence to support the showing.
Moreover, Mohamed declares that "[t]he hydrogen species may be
implanted at a dose of between 0.5 x 1016 cm-2 and 0.9 x 1016 cm-2.
However, the constant hydrogen dosage of 0.9 x 1016 cm-2 is best for
improving low frequency surface roughness." Deel. ,r 16. This declaration
is insufficient because the range of the claim encompasses values less than
0.5 x 1016 cm-2. See claim 1 (reciting a range of0.9 x 1016 cm-2 or less). 8
Again, Appellant has not shown criticality for the entire hydrogen dosage
range of claim 1.
We are cognizant of the fact that the Examiner did not rely on
Nakajima to reject claims 1-3 and 8-10 and that our reasons for determining
the showing of unexpected results inadequate differ from those presented by
the Examiner. In order to afford Appellant due process and an opportunity
to respond, we denominate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). The rejection as it
currently stands is a rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Again view of Agarwal and Nakajima.
B. The rejection of claims 4-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Again view of Agarwal, and further in view of Nakajima
To reject claims 4--7, the Examiner adds Nakajima. Final 9. Claims
4--7 narrow the dosage ranges of helium and hydrogen and read as follows:
8 This declaration raises the issue of whether dosages of less than 0.5 x 1016
cm-2 of hydrogen are enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ,r 1.
10
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the dosage of the
helium is about 1.5 x 1016 cm-2.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the dosage of the
hydrogen is about 0.9 x 1016 cm-2.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the dosage of the
helium is about 1.5 x 1016 cm-2.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the dosage of the
hydrogen is about 0.9 x 1016 cm-2.
Appeal Br. 37-38 (claims appendix).
There is no dispute that, as found by the Examiner, Nakajima suggests
implanting He before H, and discloses He dosages ranging from 0.5 x 1016
cm-2 to 2 x 1016 cm-2 and H dosages ranging from 1.5 x 1016 cm-2 to 2.5 x
1016 cm-2. Compare Final 10, with Appeal Br. 32; see Nakajima Table 1.
Appellant urges that "[a]s previously noted, it is the combination of
the order of implantation (He before H) and the respective dosage ranges
(together) that are critical for purposes of ultimately providing an exposed
surface of the useful layer having a low-frequency roughness of 5 A or less
as measured by atomic force microscopy in swept squares of 10 x 10 µm2."
Appeal Br. 32, citing Mohamed Deel. ,r,r 12-17. But one data point at a
dosage of0.9 x 1016 cm-2 He followed by 0.9 x 1016 cm-2 H does not support
the criticality of the full scope of the claimed dosage ranges recited in claims
4--7.
C. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Aga in view of Agarwal, and further in view of Kuwahara
In arguing against the rejection of claim 12, for which the Examiner
adds Kuwabara, Appellant relies on the arguments made against the
11
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 33-34. For the reasons we explained
above, Appellant has not identified a reversible error. As we added
Nakajima to reject claim 1, we also add Nakajima to reject claim 12.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections, but as new grounds of rejection.
In particular, we add Nakajima to the rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-10 and
to the rejection of claim 12. We also present different reasons why the
showing of unexpected results lacks adequate support.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision, as modified by the new grounds of
rejection, is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review."
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner ....
12
Appeal2018-001886
Application 14/625,407
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b)
13