Ex Parte Thompson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 10, 2017

13617082 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/617,082 09/14/2012 David Thompson 016776/USA02/MDP/MDP-ALD/ 1099
67251 7590 10/12/2017
SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT
33 WOOD AVE SOUTH
SUITE 830
ISELIN, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
TUROCY, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1718
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2017 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):
docket @ dsiplaw. com
j escobar @ dsiplaw. com
lmurphy @ dsiplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID THOMPSON and JEFFREY W. ANTHIS
Appeal 2016-006343
Application 13/617,082
Technology Center 1700
Before CHUNG K. PAK, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—9, 11—14, 16, and 17
as unpatentable over the combined prior art of Thompson (US Pub.
2009/0205968 Al; Aug. 20, 2009), Grushin (US Pub. 2005/0240028 Al;
Oct. 27, 2005), and Pallem (US Pub. 2009/0302434 Al; Dec. 10, 2009). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Appellant is the real party in interest, Applied Materials, Inc. (Appeal
Br. 3).
Appeal 2016-006343
Application 13/617,082
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method of depositing a metal-aluminum layer, the
method comprising:
exposing a substrate surface to pulses of a metal PCAI
precursor having a structure represented by:
wherein R is a Cue straight or branched alkyl, M is p or f-
block metal, Lx are x ligands, x is a number from 1-4, and with
each L independently being the same or different ligand as
another and an aluminum precursor to form a metal-aluminum
layer on the substrate surface,
wherein the metal PCAI precursor comprises a p or f-block
metal and the aluminum precursor comprises an alkyl aluminum
precursor or an amine alane.
Independent claim 16 is also directed to a method of depositing a
metal-aluminum layer using a similar PCAI precursor as claim 1 (Claims
Appendix).
OPINION
Upon consideration of the evidence of record and each of Appellants’
contentions as set forth in the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 9, 2015, as well as the
Reply Brief filed June 6, 2016, we determine that Appellants have not
demonstrated reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection (e.g., Ans. 2—12
(mailed April 6, 2016)). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365—66 (Fed. Cir.
2
Appeal 2016-006343
Application 13/617,082
2011) (explaining the Board’s long-held practice of requiring Appellants to
identify the alleged error in the Examiner’s rejection). We sustain the
rejection for the reasons expressed by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following for emphasis.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-
65 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (a reference stands for all of the specific teachings
thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably been expected to draw therefrom).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
teachings of the applied prior art; rather, they allege that there is no
motivation to modify the PCAI precursor of Thompson or Grushin based on
the teachings of the other as proposed by the Examiner and that only with
impermissible hindsight would one arrive at the claimed PCAI precursor in a
method of depositing a metal-aluminum layer (Appeal Br. 10-13; Reply Br.
3, 4). These arguments are not persuasive. Appellants do not sufficiently
address the Examiner’s position that there is a limited number of
possibilities needed to arrive at the claimed PCAI precursor that are all
explicitly taught or suggested in the Grushin/Thompson combination (Ans.
generally). As the Examiner de facto determines, one of ordinary skill in the
art only needs to replace the central atom of Grushin’s PCAI ligand (as
identified by the Examiner) with the lanthanide central atom of Thompson
(e.g., Ans. 5, 6, 11). Cf. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804,
3
Appeal 2016-006343
Application 13/617,082
807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (holding that the prior art's disclosure of over 1200
possible combinations rendered all possible formulations obvious). As
pointed out by the Examiner, Thompson explicitly suggests the alternative
use of either copper or lanthanide as a central metal atom in a similar
organometallic precursor compound for metal deposition (e.g., Ans. 7; citing
Thompson || 38, 44, 56).
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s
determination that one of ordinary skill in the art, using no more than
ordinary creativity, would have modified Grushin’s 131 organometallic
precursor to use a lanthanide central atom as an alternative to a copper
central atom as a precursor for metal deposition based on Thompson’s
exemplification of a similar organometallic precursor that may use either
copper or lanthanide as a central metal atom. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 421
(2007) (“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity,
not an automaton.”); Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited
Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (under the flexible inquiry
set forth by the Supreme Court, the PTO must take account of the
“inferences and creative steps,” as well as routine steps, that an ordinary
artisan would employ).
Appellants have also not shown error in the Examiner’s determination
that the use of a known aluminum precursor (e.g., trimethyl aluminum
(TMA)) in combination with the PCAI precursor suggested by
Thompson/Grushin would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art based on the applied prior art, noting that Pallem “explicitly discloses
organometallics used with TMA to deposit metal aluminum films (0069-
0073)” (Ans. 3).
4
Appeal 2016-006343
Application 13/617,082
It is noted that Appellants do not rely upon any evidence of
unexpected results (e.g., Ans. 12).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5