Ex Parte Roest et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13264816 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/264,816 10/17/2011
65913 7590 11/02/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aarnoud Laurens Roest
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.
81359596 US04 1039
EXAMINER
HUBER, ROBERT T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2892
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AARNOUD LAURENS ROEST and
LINDA VAN LEUKEN-PETERS
Appeal 2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
PERCURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision refers to Appellants' Specification filed July 9, 2013 (Spec.),
the Final Office Action delivered November 13, 2014 (Final Act.),
Appellants' Appeal Brief filed January 9, 2015 (Appeal Br.), the Examiner's
Answer delivered March 24, 2015 (Ans.), and Appellants' Reply Brief filed
April 9, 2015 (Reply Br.).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as NXP B.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to methods for fabricating an
electronic component (see, e.g., claim 1 ). Appellants disclose that metal-
insulator-metal (MIM) capacitors using high-K dielectric materials have an
important role for next generation Integrated Discretes (IDs) devices, such as
capacitors, resistors, and ESD protection diodes. Spec. 1: 14--17. A first
processing stage of the method for fabricating the electronic component is
shown in Figure 1 of Appellants' disclosure and is reproduced below.
FIG. 1
104
l
+
/100
--120
..___...-,114
'118
-116
112
110
108
L
x
Figure 1 depicts an electronic component at a first processing stage
Appellants disclose an electronic component 1043 including a
substrate 102 upon which a titanium oxide (Ti02) layer 108, a bottom barrier
layer 110, a bottom electrode 112, and a capacitor dielectric 116 are
3 Throughout this Opinion, for clarity, we present labels to elements in
figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document.
2
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
deposited. Spec. 7:8-9, 22-30. A top electrode 118 is then deposited to
provide a capacitor structure 114, upon which a first cover layer 120 is
placed. Id. at 8: 1--4.
Appellants disclose a second cover layer with a low dielectric constant
can be deposited on the first cover layer 120 so a well-controlled and highly
accurate resistor may be manufactured. Id. at 8: 14--19. However, because
the second cover layer is normally deposited under hydrogen-rich
conditions, oxidized lead of the first cover layer 120 is reduced, which
produces lead particles on the surface of the first cover layer 120. Id. at 3:4--
9 and 8:24--30. The lead particles create a rough surface upon which the
second cover layer is to be deposited, which leads to poor results when a
resistor layer is subsequently deposited. Id. at 8: 19-22 and 8:33-9:2. To
address this issue, Appellants disclose thinning the first cover layer 120. Id.
at 3:9-11. A second processing stage of the method for fabricating the
electronic component is shown in Figure 2 of Appellants' disclosure and is
reproduced below.
L
x
FIG. 2
Figure 2 depicts the electronic component at a second processing stage
3
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
As indicated by the dashed lines in Figure 2, the first cover layer 120
is thinned, such as by 10 to 40 nm. Spec. 9:3-9. The thinning operation
may be achieved via a sputtering operation or an etching process, such as a
wet etch process using nitric or hydrochloric acid. Id. at 5:8-14 and 9:9-11.
Appellants disclose the thinning operation removes more than a proportional
amount of lead so the first cover layer 120 is left lead-poor. Id. at 3:11-13.
As a result, growth of structures that would negatively affect the structure
and reliability of a resistor layer are suppressed during fabrication of a
second cover layer. Id. at 3:13-16.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. 4 The limitations at issue are
italicized.
1. A method for fabricating an electronic component, the
method comprising:
fabricating, on a substrate, at least one integrated l\1Il\1
capacitor having a top capacitor electrode, and a bottom
capacitor electrode at a smaller distance from the substrate than
the top capacitor electrode;
fabricating an electrically insulating first cover layer on
the top capacitor electrode, wherein the first cover layer at least
partly covers the top capacitor electrode and includes a lead-
containing dielectric material;
thinning the first cover layer, wherein the thinning step
removes a more than proportional amount of lead from the lead-
containing dielectric material such that the lead-containing
dielectric material has a lower concentration of lead after the
thinning step than before the thinning step;
fabricating an electrically insulating second cover layer on
the first cover layer, wherein the second cover layer at least partly
4 Appeal Br. 19.
4
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
covers the first cover layer and has a dielectric permittivity
smaller than that of the first cover layer; and
fabricating an electrically conductive resistor layer on the
second cover layer, wherein the resistor layer has a defined
ohmic resistance.
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14--17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination ofEvans5 in view of Mori; 6
(2) claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Evans and Mori and further in view of Zelner; 7
(3) claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Evans and Mori and further in view of Goldberger; 8
(4) claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the combination of Evans and Mori and further in view of Joehren; 9 and
(5) claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-12, 14--17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Evans in view of
Ma.10
5 Evans et al., US 5,920,453 A, issued July 6, 1999 ("Evans").
6 Mori et al., US 6,384,440 Bl, issued May 7, 2002 ("Mori").
7 Zelner et al., US 2008/0001292 Al, published January 3, 2008 ("Zelner").
8 Goldberger et al., US 2003/0030125 Al, published February 13, 2003
("Goldberger").
9 Roest et al., WO 2008/028660 A2, published March 13, 2008 ("Joehren").
Although Roest is the first named inventor, the Examiner refers to WO
2008/028660 as "Joehren." Final Act. 18. For consistency, we refer to WO
2008/028660 as "Joehren."
10 Ma et al., US 6,281,535 Bl, issued August 28, 2001 ("Ma").
5
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner reversibly
erred in finding that the combination of Evans and Mori and the combination
of Evans and Ma disclose thinning a first cover, "wherein the thinning step
removes a more than proportional amount of lead from the lead-containing
dielectric material such that the lead-containing dielectric material has a
lower concentration of lead after the thinning step than before the thinning
step," as recited in claim 1.
In this regard, the Examiner finds, inter alia, Evans discloses a
method for fabricating an electronic component in which a MIM capacitor is
manufactured and an electrically insulating first cover layer including a lead-
containing dielectric material is fabricated on top of the capacitor, citing
layer 30 of Evans. Final Act. 3 and 12. The Examiner finds Evans discloses
"thinning the first cover layer, wherein the thinning step removes a more
than proportional amount of lead from the lead-containing dielectric
material." Id. In this regard, the Examiner finds Evans teaches that the first
cover layer is "thinned from the sides," and that, because the first cover layer
is made of a lead-containing dielectric material, this removal of the sides of
the first cover layer "necessarily removes an amount of lead from the [first
cover layer.]" Id. Nonetheless, the Examiner acknowledges Evans does not
disclose that the material of the first cover layer has a lower concentration of
lead after the thinning step than before the thinning step. Id. at 4 and 13.
The Examiner finds Mori discloses a first cover layer including a
lead-containing dielectric material that is thinned via a wet etching operation
using nitric acid. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner finds Ma discloses thinning a
lead-containing dielectric material by using a sputter etch-back process. Id.
6
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
at 13. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Evans
in view of Mori or Ma and finds the process of Evans, as modified by Mori
or Ma, would be substantially identical to Appellants' process. Id.at 5 and
13-14. In view of this, the Examiner finds the process of Evans, as modified
by Mori or Ma, would inherently remove more than a proportional amount
of lead from the lead-containing dielectric material of the first cover layer so
the material has a lower concentration of lead after the thinning step, as
recited in claim 1. Id. at 5-6 and 14.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erroneously assumes that
"thinning" is the same as removal of more than a proportional amount of
lead, and therefore the prior art fails to teach removal of more than a
proportional amount of lead. Appeal Br. 5. Appellants argue that because
the top surface of the first cover layer has most of the Pb particles in their
invention, the thinning step removes these particles leaving a thinned first
cover layer that has a lower percentage of lead. Id. Appellants submit that
Mori and Ma are silent to the removal of more than a proportional amount of
lead. Id. at 5 and 11. Appellants thus contend Evans as modified by Mori or
Ma would not thin a first cover layer such that the thinning operation
"removes a more than proportional amount of lead from the lead-containing
dielectric material" of the first cover layer such that the lead-containing
dielectric material has a lower concentration of lead after the thinning step
than before the thinning step," as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5---6, 11; Reply
Br. 1-3.
We have considered the respective positions articulated by the
Examiner and Appellants, and find a preponderance of the evidence favors
Appellants. As an initial matter, it is necessary to construe the claim 1
7
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
recitation, "thinning the first cover layer, wherein the thinning step removes
a more than proportional amount of lead from the lead-containing dielectric
material such that the lead-containing dielectric material has a lower
concentration of lead after the thinning step than before the thinning step." 11
It is axiomatic that during examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
broadest reasonable interpretation construes the meaning of the words of the
claim in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account any definitions or enlightenment
contained in the written description of Appellants' Specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[T]he specification 'is
always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."'
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415F.3d1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
Appellants' Specification describes thinning of the first cover layer as
leading "to a more than proportional removal of the lead" of the first cover
layer and "[ d]ue to this effect the top of the remaining first cover layer is
lead poor" (emphasis added). Spec. 3: 11-13. The Specification further
states the first cover layer may have "a thickness of between 90 and 300 nm,
11 "[N]ot unlike a determination of infringement, a determination of
anticipation, as well as obviousness, involves two steps. First is construing
the claim, ... followed by, in the case of anticipation or obviousness, a
comparison of the construed claim to the prior art." Key Pharms. Inc. v.
Hereon Labs. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
8
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
after the thinning" and that the first cover layer may be "thinned by
approximately 10 to 40 nm," as depicted in Figure 2. Id. at 4:32-33 and
9:3---6. Moreover, Figure 1 depicts the first cover layer 120 as having an
initial thickness, which is subsequently reduced by the thinning operation, as
indicated by the dashed lines of Figure 2 that indicate an as-deposited
thickness and indicated by the solid lines that indicate the thickness after the
thinning operation. Id. at 9:6-9.
In view of Appellants' disclosure, we interpret "thinning the first
cover layer, wherein the thinning step removes a more than proportional
amount of lead from the lead-containing dielectric material such that the
lead-containing dielectric material has a lower concentration of lead after the
thinning step than before the thinning step" as meaning reducing the
thickness of the first cover layer so a portion of the thickness of the first
cover layer remains. Further, because the Appellants' disclosure does not
describe the thinning operation as selectively treating specific areas of the
first cover layer, we interpret the language "thinning the first cover layer" to
require thinning the entirety of the top surface of the first cover layer.
With this claim interpretation in mind, we tum to the disclosures of
Evans, Mori, and Ma. Evans discloses a ferroelectric capacitor. Evans 1 :6-
7. Figure 4 of Evans is reproduced below.
9
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
Figure 4 depicts manufacture of a capacitor
As shown in Figure 4, a layer 16 of glass is deposited onto a substrate
(not shown), a platinum bottom electrode layer 18 is deposited on the glass
layer 16, a first ferroelectric layer 20 is deposited on the bottom electrode
layer 18, and a platinum top electrode layer 22 is subsequently deposited on
the first ferroelectric layer 20. Evans 4:66-5:23. The top electrode layer 22
is etched to form individual top electrodes. Id. at 5:32-34. A second
ferroelectric layer 30 is deposited over the first ferroelectric layer 20. Id. at
5:37--40. As shown in Figure 5, reproduced below, the second ferroelectric
layer 30 is then etched so there is a reasonable overlap with top electrodes
22. Id. at 5:53-57.
Figure 5 depicts a subsequent manufacturing step for a capacitor
The Examiner finds Evans' second ferroelectric layer 30 is a first
cover layer and cites the etching step described at column 5, lines 53-57 of
Evans as a thinning operation for the second ferroelectric layer 30. Final
Act. 3. However, as the Examiner finds, the etching process disclosed by
Evans results in a removal of portions of the second ferroelectric layer 30.
10
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
In particular, the sides of the second ferroelectric layer 30 lateral to the
portion of the second ferroelectric layer 30 overlapping the top electrodes 22
are completely removed, as shown in Evans, Figures 4 and 5. The Examiner
acknowledges this in the Answer by stating "[ t ]he Examiner submits that
Evans discloses with respect to figure 5 that the side portions of the first
cover layer 30 are removed'' (emphasis added). Ans. 4. Evans' etching
process does not reduce the thickness of the second ferroelectric layer 30 so
a portion of the second ferroelectric layer 30 remains, as required by claim 1.
In spite of this teaching, the Examiner says it would have been
obvious to remove the amount of the first cover layer recited in claim 4 as a
matter of determining the workable or optimum range for the etching
process to address the amount of layer 30 removed by the etching process.
Ans. 4--5. However, reducing a thickness of a layer (so only the amount
removed in claim 4 is removed to leave a portion behind) is not the purpose
of Evans' s etching process. In other words, the removal amount range of
claim 4, or any range that results in thinning without complete thickness
removal, is not within the workable or optimum range for Evans's etching
process.
In addition, as Appellants argue, Mori and Ma fail to remedy the
deficiency of the etching process of Evans. Mori discloses a ferroelectric
memory. Mori 1 :9. As shown in Figure 5G, reproduced below, the
complete thickness of a portion of ferroelectric film 10 formed on an
electrode 9 is removed by wet etching to thereby form a contact formation
22. Mori 8:48-54. Mori discloses using a wet etching solution including
hydrofluoric and nitric acid to etch the ferroelectric film 10 and make the
contact formation 22. Id. at col. 8, 11. 52-54.
11
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
Fig. 5G
8
5---..
l
Figure 5G depicts a manufacturing step for a ferroelectric memory
Ma discloses a three-dimensional ferroelectric capacitor. Ma 1 :7-9.
As depicted in Ma, Figure 12, reproduced below, portions of layers 80, 82,
84, and 86 are removed via a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process
or via a sputter etch-back process, leaving portions 50, 26, 28, 30 behind.
Ma 7:35-39.
I
38
46 48
..-36
STI
18 16
32 34
20
FIG. 12
Figure 12 illustrates a step of a manufacturing process for a capacitor
12
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
In view of the above, Mori and Ma disclose the removal of portions of
at least one layer, not the thinning of a layer so a portion of the layer's
thickness remains, as required by claim 1. In addition, the Examiner fails to
direct our attention to any disclosure in either Mori or Ma in support of the
finding that these references teach removing a more than proportional
amount of lead as recited in claim 1. Therefore, Evans as modified by Mori
or Ma does not disclose or suggest thinning a first cover layer, as recited by
claim 1. As a result, the record does not support the Examiner's finding that
the combination of Evans and Mori and the combination of Evans and Ma
disclose thinning a first cover, "wherein the thinning step removes a more
than proportional amount of lead from the lead-containing dielectric material
such that the lead-containing dielectric material has a lower concentration of
lead after the thinning step than before the thinning step."
For the reasons set forth above, and in Appellants' Appeal and Reply
Briefs, the § 103 rejections over the combination of Evans and Mori and the
combination of Evans and Ma are not sustained.
The remaining § 103 rejections of claims 9, 13, 18, and 20 over
various combinations of Evans, Mori, Zelner, Goldberger, and Joehren
suffer from the same deficiencies as the § 103 rejections of claim 1.
Although the remaining § 103 rejections include Zelner, Goldberger, and
Joehren as additional prior art references, the Examiner does not rely on
Zelner, Goldberger, or Joehren to remedy the above-discussed deficiencies
in the combination of Evans and Mori or the combination of Evans and Ma.
13
Appeal2015-005133
Application 13/264,816
Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims
9, 13, 18, and 20.
DECISION
On the record before us and for the reasons given in Appellants'
Appeal and Reply Briefs, we reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejections.
REVERSED
14