Ex Parte Yang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

12626925 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

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.
12/626,925 11/29/2009 Yu-Ru YANG 07377UMC-US 3094
84937 7590 12/19/2014
LanWay IPR Services
P.O. Box 230970
CENTREVILLE, VA 20120
EXAMINER
NADAV, ORI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2811
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2014 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 YU-RU YANG and CHIEN-CHUNG HUANG
____________

Appeal 2012-011946
Application 12/626,9251
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, GEORGE C. BEST, and
KIMBERLY J. McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.

McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
19–27 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al.
(2002/0090811 A1 published July 11, 2002) (“Kim”) in view of Lee et al.
(5,534,463 issued July 9, 1996) (“Lee”). Ans. 4–13. Claims 1–18 are
withdrawn. App. Br. 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to semiconductor devices and more
particularly to a damascene structure. Spec. ¶ 4, App. Br. 15 (Claim App’x).

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is UNITED
MICROELECTRONICS CORP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-011946
Application 12/626,925
2
Claim 19, the only independent claim on appeal, is reproduced below:
19. A damascene structure, comprising:
a conductive layer;
a first dielectric layer disposed on the conductive layer,
the first dielectric layer having a via therein;
a first barrier metal layer disposed on the via bottom and
the via sidewall in the first dielectric layer, the first barrier
metal layer covering the conductive layer on the via bottom;
a resistivity-modified barrier layer of metallized
materials formed of a material derived from what the first
barrier metal layer is formed of, and covering the first barrier
metal layer on the via sidewall, as well as outside the via while
exposing the first barrier metal layer on the via bottom;
a second barrier metal layer covering the resistivity-
modified barrier layer of metallized materials on the via
sidewall, exposing the first barrier metal layer on the via
bottom, wherein the resistivity-modified barrier layer is of
different material composition from the second barrier metal
layer; and
a third barrier metal layer covering the second barrier
metal layer on the via sidewall, and covering the first barrier
metal layer on the via bottom.
App. Br. 15 (Claim App’x) (limitations at issue italicized).
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2
The Examiner has maintained the rejection of claims 19–27 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention. The Examiner states that the claim limitation of
“wherein the resistivity-modified barrier layer is of different material
composition from the second barrier metal layer” is unclear as to how a
Appeal 2012-011946
Application 12/626,925
3
material (the material of the resistivity-modified barrier layer) can be
different than a layer. Ans. 2.
The Appellants do not contest this rejection. Accordingly, this
rejection is summarily sustained. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
However, for the purposes of addressing the prior art rejection set
forth below, we interpret “wherein the resistivity-modified barrier layer is of
different material composition from the second barrier metal layer” to mean
that the material composition of the resistivity-modified barrier layer is
different than the material composition of the second barrier metal layer.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner has maintained the rejection of claims 19–27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Lee. Ans. 2–6. The
Examiner found that the Titanium/Titanium Nitride (“Ti/TiN”) alloy layer
13 of Figure 2E of Kim comprises a two layer structure wherein one layer is
formed of Ti and the second layer is composed of TiN. Id. at 3 (citing Kim
¶ 32, 36, claim 2); see also id. at 8. The Examiner found that the Ti layer is
“a resistivity-modified barrier layer of metallized materials” and that the TiN
layer is a “second barrier metal layer” as required by claim 19. Ans. 3. The
Examiner also found that layer 13 of Kim covers the first barrier metal layer
5 on the via sidewall as well as outside the via. Id. The Examiner further
found that because layer 13 does not cover layer 5 on the via bottom that
Kim teaches a resistivity-modified barrier layer “exposing the first barrier
metal layer 5 on the via bottom.” Id. The Examiner also found that the
barrier metal layer 9 of Kim covers the second barrier metal layer on the via
sidewall as recited in claim 19. Id.
Appeal 2012-011946
Application 12/626,925
4
Appellants first argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Kim
teaches the resistivity-modified barrier layer or the second barrier layer of
claim 19 because a Ti/TiN alloy does not inherently mean that the layer is a
Ti/TiN two-layer structure. App. Br. 12. Appellants assert that a Ti/TiN
alloy layer may be a single layer Ti/TiN. Id.
We disagree. The Examiner found that Ti/TiN is a well-known term
of art that is commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a
two-layer structure comprising a first layer of Ti and a second layer of TiN.
Ans. 7 (citing Kim ¶¶ 32, 36). Appellants have provided no argument or
evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
Second, Appellants argue that Kim fails to teach or suggest a
“resistivity-modified barrier layer . . . covering the first barrier metal layer
on the via sidewall, as well as outside the via while exposing the first
barrier metal layer on the via bottom” because layer 13 exposes layer 9
instead of layer 5. App. Br. 12.
We disagree. The Examiner found that although layer 13 is not in
direct contact with layer 5, that layer 13 still covers (indirectly) the top part
of layer 5. Ans. 8. The presence of layer 9 in between layers 5 and 13 does
not prevent layer 13 from covering layer 9. See id. at 8–9. Since layer 13
does not cover the bottom part of layer 5, then layer 13 indirectly exposes
the bottom part of the layer as claimed. Id. Appellants do not contest the
Examiner’s claim construction or provide any argument as to why the
Examiner’s findings are in error. Thus, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred.
Third, Appellants argue that Kim does not teach that the third barrier
metal layer 9 covers the second barrier metal layer 13 on the via sidewall
Appeal 2012-011946
Application 12/626,925
5
because an end of layer 9 is between layer 13 and layer 7. App. Br. 13. We
disagree. The Examiner found that the end of layer 9 is in direct contact
with layer 13 and thus covers the inner surface of layer 13 on the via
sidewall as claimed. Ans. 9. Appellants have not provided any argument as
to why the Examiner’s findings are in error. Thus, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in finding that Kim teaches a third barrier metal layer
covering the second barrier metal layer on the via sidewall as recited in
claim 19.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 19. As Appellants have not separately argued the
patentability of the dependent claims, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 20–27.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph is summarily affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 19–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Kim and Lee 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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
bar