Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

12357296 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

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.
12/357,296 01/21/2009 Zhongyan Wang 10-14053-00 1403
105639 7590 05/25/2016
Duane Morris LLP (10/11) Seagate
IP Docketing
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1194
EXAMINER
JELSMA, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1721
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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 ZHONGYAN WANG, THOMAS R. BOONSTRA,
MARK H. OSTROWSKI, ALEXANDRE V. DEMTCHOUK,
XILIN PENG, and KAIZHONG GAO
____________________

Appeal 2014-007343
Application 12/357,296
Technology Center 1700
____________________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, JULIA HEANEY, and JENNIFER R. GUPTA,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision2 finally rejecting claims 1–18 and 24–27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Seagate Technology LLC.
Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2013 (“App. Br.”), 3.
2 Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2013 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2014-007343
Application 12/357,296

2
The claims are directed to methods for forming patterned templates.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed claim terms in italics, is
illustrative of the claims on appeal.
1. A method comprising:
establishing a first layer of a first material, supported by a
substrate;
disposing a resist pattern in overlying contact with the first layer,
the resist pattern comprising shapes comprising a top surface and
one or more side walls;
performing a first deposition of a conformal layer of a second
material on the resist pattern;
performing directional ion milling of the second layer, wherein
the directional ion milling exposes the top surface of the shapes
and retains the side walls of the shapes; and
removing the resist pattern and portions of the first layer, wherein
the removing produces a first template pattern comprising the
second material supported by the first material.
App. Br. 26 (Appendix I) (emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 24–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhou (US 2008/0122125 A1, published
May 29, 2008); and
2. Claims 3, 4, 7–9, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Zhou in view of Albrecht (US 2009/0029191
A1, published January 29, 2009);
Appeal 2014-007343
Application 12/357,296

3
3. Claims 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zhou in view of Okino et al. (US 2006/0222967 A1, published
October 5, 2006) (hereinafter “Okino”);
4. Claims 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Zhou;
5. Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhou in
view of Kawakami et al. (JP 01-243426 A, published
September 28, 1989) (hereinafter “Kawakami ’426”); and
6. Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhou in
view of Kawakami ’426 and Kawakami et al. (JP 02-260423 A,
published October 23, 1990) (hereinafter “Kawakami ’423”).
Examiner’s Answer mailed April 28, 2014 (“Ans.”), 4–17.3
Rejection 1
Appellants argue for patentability of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 24–
27, subject to the first ground of rejection, as a group. See App. Br. 2–7.
Appellants have not presented substantive arguments for patentability of
independent claims 24 and 26 or any of the dependent claims. We choose
independent claim 1 as representative of this group, and claims 2, 5, 6, 12,
14, and 24–27 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellants argue the rejection should be reversed because the
Examiner erred in finding Zhou discloses or suggests “a resist pattern in
overlying contact with the first layer,” as in claim 1. App. Br. 15–17.

3 The rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, was withdrawn by the Examiner in the Advisory Action mailed
August 6, 2013. See Ans. 17.
Appeal 2014-007343
Application 12/357,296

4
Zhou teaches a method of fabricating an integrated circuit device.
Zhou ¶ 28. Zhou’s integrated circuit device may include a target layer 110
(substrate). Id. ¶ 34; Fig. 1. An intermediate layer 120 (first layer of a first
material) may be formed above the target layer 110 and an anti-reflective
layer 130 may be formed above the intermediate layer 120. Id. ¶¶ 35–36;
Fig. 1. A resist layer 140 may be formed on top of the anti-reflective
layer 130. Id. ¶ 37; Fig. 1. A pattern may be formed in the resist layer 140
by developing and etching the photoresist material (resulting in patterned
resist layer 140ʹ). Id. ¶ 37. A first spacer layer 150 (second layer) may be
conformally deposited on the patterned resist layer 140ʹ. Id.; Fig. 3.
Portions of the first spacer layer 150 may be removed over substantially
horizontal surfaces of the patterned resist layer 140ʹ and the anti-reflective
layer 130 forming first spacers 150ʹ adjoining the sidewalls of the resist
layer 140ʹ. Id. ¶ 40; Fig. 4. Then, portions of the patterned resist layer 140ʹ
(between the first spacers 150ʹ), and exposed portions of the first layer 120
and anti-reflective layer 130 may be removed, resulting in an integrated
circuit device where the first spacers 150ʹ (second material) are supported by
underlying portions of the intermediate layer 120ʹ (first material). Id. ¶¶ 41–
42; Fig. 5, Fig. 6.
Although the embodiments depicted in Zhou’s Figures 1–6 include an
anti-reflective layer 130, because Zhou teaches that the anti-reflective layer
“may be formed” above the intermediate layer (¶ 36), Zhou teaches
integrated circuit devices that both do and do not contain an anti-reflective
layer.4 See also id. at claim 1 (which does not recite an anti-reflective layer).

4 Even if Zhou requires an anti-reflective layer 130 in its device, the
patterned resist 140ʹ formed on top of the anti-reflective layer 130
Appeal 2014-007343
Application 12/357,296

5
We, therefore, are not persuaded the Examiner reversibly erred in finding
that Zhou teaches or would have suggested a resist pattern in overlying
contact with a first layer. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation and obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, and 24–27
over Zhou.
Rejections 2–6
Claims 3, 4, 7–13, and 15–18 depend directly (claims 3, 10, 13, 15,
and 18) or indirectly (claims 4, 7–9, 11, 12, 16, and 17) from independent
claim 1. Appellants argue that Albrecht, Okino, Kawakami ’426, and
Kawakami ’423 fail to cure the alleged deficiencies in the rejection of
claim 1. See App. Br. 22–23. These arguments are not persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections because, for the reasons
discussed above, we are not persuaded of any deficiencies in Zhou’s
disclosure of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 3, 4, 7–13, and 15–18.
DECISION
The rejections are 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).

(Zhou ¶ 37–38; Fig. 2) would correspond to a resist pattern in overlying
contact with a first layer, as recited in claim 1. Independent claim 1 uses the
open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” and would not exclude
additional layers being disposed between the substrate and the first layer
such as an intermediate layer 120, as in Zhou.
Appeal 2014-007343
Application 12/357,296

6
AFFIRMED