Ex Parte Wu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2010

11117152 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHII-MING WU, SHIH-WEI CHOU, CHENG-TUNG LIN,
CHIH-WEI CHANG, and SHAU-LIN SHUE
_____________

Appeal 2009-009765
Application 11/117,152
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009765
Application 11/117,152

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ Figure 1 is depicted below:

Figure 1 depicts Appellants’ claimed invention which is directed to a
stacked arrangement of layers including a metal layer 120 and an additive
layer 130 which is formed over a substrate 110. The additive layer 130 is
made out of material that, when combined with a silicide, hinders high
temperature agglomeration. See Spec. ¶¶ [0025]-[0026].
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
Appeal 2009-009765
Application 11/117,152

3
1. A method for fabricating a metal silicide, the method comprising:
forming over a substrate a stacked arrangement of layers,
wherein the stacked arrangement of layers comprises an additive
layer, a substantially silicon-free metal layer, and a barrier layer, the
barrier layer located over the additive layer;
annealing the stacked arrangement of layers to form a metal
silicide layer on the substrate, wherein the metal silicide layer
includes an additive from the additive layer; and
etching the stacked arrangement of layers to remove an
unreacted material layer.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Cabral US 2004/0123922 A1 Jul. 1, 2004
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Cabral.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 8, 9, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Cabral.

ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether:
(1) the limitation of “etching the stacked arrangement of layers to
remove an unreacted material layer,” as recited in independent claims 1 and
11, requires etching of the barrier layer; and
(2) Cabral teaches the limitation of “the barrier layer located over the
additive layer” as recited in independent claim 1 and similar limitations of
claims 5 and 11.
Appeal 2009-009765
Application 11/117,152

4

ANALYSIS
Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Appellants make two arguments against the rejection. The first
argument, which is directed to independent claims 1 and 11 and their
dependent claims, is that Cabral’s barrier layer is removed prior to
performing the etching step, whereas these claims require that the barrier
layer be present at the time the recited “etching” step is performed (Appeal
Br. 8-10). We do not agree that the claims preclude removal of the barrier
layer prior to the etching step. The presence of the barrier layer during
etching is not implied by the fact that the “forming,” “annealing,” and
“etching” steps of claim 1 all recite a “stacked arrangement of layers,” which
in the “forming” step is recited as including an additive layer, a substantially
silicon-free metal layer, and a barrier layer. Different layers exist at
different times during the claimed method. Appellants’ Figure 1, which
shows the stacked arrangement of layers prior to the “annealing” step, shows
layers 120, 130, and 140. Figure 3, which shows the stacked arrangement of
layers after the annealing step, shows layers 150, 160, and 140. It is
therefore unreasonable to interpret the “stacked arrangement of layers”
recited in the “etching” step as including each of the layers recited in the
“forming” step, including the barrier layer. Claim 1 therefore does not
implicitly preclude removal of the barrier layer prior to the “etching” step.
The same is true of independent 11. For this reason, we find it unnecessary
to address the Examiner’s finding that “claims 1 and 2 of Cabral disclose
removing the barrier layer in the same step wherein the remaining (un-
reacted) Ni-alloy is removed” (Ans. 7).
Appeal 2009-009765
Application 11/117,152

5

Appellants’ second argument, which is directed to independent claims
1, 5, and 11 and their dependent claims, is that Cabral fails to disclose a
single embodiment that includes a “barrier layer located over an additive
layer” (Appeal Br. 16-17), claim language which Appellants and the
Examiner appear to agree requires a barrier layer located over an additive
layer than has not yet been alloyed with the recited metal layer (id.). The
Examiner reads this claim language on two paragraphs in Cabral. Paragraph
[0038] explains, in relevant part, that “the alloying additive may be
introduced as a discrete layer on top of a Ni film through bilayer
deposition.” Paragraph [0043] states, in relevant part, that “[o]ptionally,
following Ni metal alloy layer formation, a barrier layer may be formed over
the metal alloy layer” (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner’s
finding (Ans. 10-11) that the phrase “Ni metal alloy layer” recited in
paragraph [0043] includes the bilayer embodiment described in paragraph
[0038]. Appellants’ argument (Appeal Br. 16-17) that these paragraphs
describe mutually exclusive embodiments overlooks Cabral’s claim 15,
which makes it clear that the phrase “Ni metal alloy formation,” mentioned
in paragraph [0043] and recited in Cabral’s claim 1, reads on merely
depositing an alloy additive layer on a Ni layer: “15. The method of
claim 1, wherein said Ni alloy layer is a bilayer formed by first depositing
said Ni and thereafter depositing a film of alloying additive on top of said
Ni.”
Accordingly, for the reasons articulated supra, we will affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 11 and for similar
Appeal 2009-009765
Application 11/117,152

6
reasons, the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12-15, and 18 as no
other arguments of patentability were presented with respect to these claims.
Analysis with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 8, 9, 16, and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
For the same reasons as articulated supra, and because Appellants do
not advance any other arguments of patentability with respect to these
claims, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The limitation of “etching the stacked arrangement of layers to
remove an unreacted material layer,” as recited in independent claims 1 and
11, does not require that the barrier layer be removed by etching; and
(2) Cabral teaches the limitation of “the barrier layer located over the
additive layer” as recited in independent claim 1 and similar limitations of
claims 5 and 11.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 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)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

SLATER & MATSIL, L.L.P.
17950 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 1000
DALLAS, TX 75252