Ex Parte Rulkens et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

11276728 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/276,728 03/11/2006 Ron Rulkens LAM2P675 3642
25920 7590 07/31/2013
MARTINE PENILLA GROUP, LLP
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
EXAMINER
COLEMAN, RYAN L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1714
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RON RULKENS, IGOR IVANOV, and MARK WEISE
____________

Appeal 2012-004218
Application 11/276,728
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON,
and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 21-34. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
Appeal 2012-004218
Application 11/276,728

2

We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim a method of rinsing during semiconductor
manufacturing a wafer comprising providing a chemical rinse including
0.01% to less than 2% hydroxylamine or a derivative and 100 ppm to 10,000
ppm triazole or a derivative such that a synergistic effect is defined between
the hydroxylamine and the triazole, wherein less hydroxylamine is required
to prevent corrosion when less triazole is used (independent claim 1; see
also remaining independent claims 24 and 29).

A copy of representative independent claim 1, taken from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief, is set forth below:
1. A method for rinsing during semiconductor manufacturing a wafer
having a surface with metal regions and with a dielectric region that has
metallic residues over the dielectric region, the method comprising:
providing a chemical rinse including 0.01% to less than 2%
hydroxylamine or a derivative thereof and 100ppm to 10,000ppm triazole or
a derivative thereof, such that a synergistic effect is defined between the
hydroxylamine and the triazole, wherein less hydroxylamine is required to
prevent corrosion when less triazole is used; and
applying the chemical rinse over the surface of the wafer, so as to
remove the metallic residues from over the dielectric region while
preventing corrosion of the metal regions;
wherein the metal regions include cobalt or cobalt alloy.

The Examiner rejects all appealed claims under the 2nd paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which Appellants regard as their invention.
Appeal 2012-004218
Application 11/276,728

3

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects:
independent claims 1 and 24 as unpatentable over Shanmugasundram
(US 2006/0003570 A1 published January 5, 2006), Pasch (6,117,795
patented September 12, 2000), and Peyne ([US 2002/0134963 A1 published
September 26, 2002) as well as dependent claims 3, 4, 21-23, and 25-28 as
unpatentable over these references in combination with other prior art; and
independent claim 29 as unpatentable over Shanmugasundram, Pasch,
Peyne, and Misra (US 2005/0181961 A1 published August 18, 2005) as well
as dependent claims 30-34 as unpatentable over these references in
combination with other prior art.

Appellants separately argue dependent claims 22 and 23 (App. Br. 19)
but do not separately argue the other dependent claims under rejection (see
id. at 8-18 and 20-23). Therefore, these other dependent claims will stand or
fall with their parent independent claims of which claim 1 is representative.

We sustain each of the above rejections for the reasons well stated by
the Examiner in the Answer. The comments below are added for emphasis.

We share the Examiner's determination that the appealed claims fail to
comply with § 112, 2nd paragraph, because the independent claims recite a
percentage range of hydroxylamine without indicating whether the
percentage is by volume or weight (Ans. 4-5). Appellants argue that the
outcome would be the same regardless of whether the percentage is by
Appeal 2012-004218
Application 11/276,728

4
volume or weight (App. Br. 8-9). This argument is unpersuasive because it
is unsupported by evidence and because of the additional reasons detailed by
the Examiner (Ans. 24-25).

In addition, we agree with the Examiner's conclusion of prima facie
obviousness regarding independent claims 1, 24, and 29 including the
conclusion that it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the
amount of hydroxylamine, thereby yielding amounts within the range
defined by these independent claims (see, e.g., Ans. 5-9).1 For the reasons
given by the Examiner (id. at 25-29), we are not convinced by Appellants'
arguments that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
By way of example, there is no convincing merit in Appellants' argument
that the about 2% by weight amount of hydroxylamine taught by Peyne does
not teach or overlap their claimed amount of less than 2% (App. Br. 9)
because about 2% by weight is considered to include amounts that are
slightly less than 2% by weight as explained by the Examiner (Ans. 26).

We also agree with the Examiner that such prima facie obvious
optimization would yield the 0.1% and 1% hydroxylamine amounts required
by dependent claims 22 and 23 (id. at 32-33). Appellants' opposing
argument is not persuasive because it is based on the incorrect premise that
Peyne's teaching is limited to a lowest hydroxylamine amount of 2% (App.

1 In making the prior art rejections, the Examiner assumes that
Appellants' claimed percentage of hydroxylamine is by weight (see, e.g.,
Ans. 26).
Appeal 2012-004218
Application 11/276,728

5
Br. 19). In fact, Peyne teaches that "the composition optionally contains
hydroxylamine . . . [and] [i]f present, desirably contains from about 2 to
about 12% by weight of hydroxylamine" (para. [0056]; emphasis added).
Peyne's use of the terms "optionally" and "desirably" would have suggested
hydroxylamine amounts below about 2%. For this reason, the record
supports the Examiner's conclusion of prima facie obviousness for the
hydroxylamine amounts required by claims 22 and 23.

Finally, in response to the Examiner's conclusion of prima facie
obviousness, Appellants argue that their claimed invention possesses an
unexpected result in the form of a synergistic effect between the
hydroxylamine and the triazole (App. Br. 13-18). Appellants acknowledge
but do not contest the Examiner's point that the Specification and Figures
show only one unexpected event whereas the appealed claims define a broad
range of variables (id. at 17; cf. Ans. 29-31). Instead, Appellants argue that
"a single unexpected result is enough to rebut the presumption of
obviousness" (App. Br. 17). This argument is not convincing. Contrary to
Appellants' belief, "[e]vidence of secondary considerations must be
reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims." In re Huai-Hung
Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

Appeal 2012-004218
Application 11/276,728

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.R.F. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

sld