Ex Parte YE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2013

11778648 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2013)

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.
11/778,648 07/17/2007 MENGQI YE AM-11065 1825
60300 7590 03/13/2013
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER
ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
2211 PARK BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 60729
PALO ALTO, CA 94306
EXAMINER
MCDONALD, RODNEY GLENN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2013 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 MENGQI YE, KEITH A. MILLER, PEIJUN DING,
GOICHI YOSHIDOME, and RONG TAO
____________

Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9-20, and 22-25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.

We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Appellants claim a method of sputtering a metal chalcogenide capable
of forming crystal and amorphous forms comprising maintaining a
temperature of a substrate containing a hole above a minimum temperature
such that the metal chalcogenide deposits within the hole in crystalline form
(claim 1). Appellants claim a similar method comprising maintaining a
temperature of a shield in a sputtering chamber to a temperature at which the
crystalline and not the amorphous phase forms on the shield (claim 19).
Finally, Appellants claim a method of sputtering a metal chalcogenide target
which comprises applying to the target a repetitive pulse form having a
positive portion of a duration less than that of a negative portion (claim 16).

Claims 1, 16, and 19, the only independent claims on appeal, read as
follows:
1. A method of sputtering a material comprising a metal chalcogenide
capable of forming in a crystalline form and an amorphous form,
comprising:
magnetron sputtering a target comprising the metal chalcogenide; and
maintaining a temperature of a substrate containing a hole in a
dielectric layer and disposed in opposition to the target at a selected
Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648

3
temperature above a minimum temperature such that the metal chalcogenide
deposits within the hole in crystalline form.

16. A method of sputtering a metal chalcogenide target disposed in a
plasma sputtering chamber, comprising:
applying to the target a repetitive pulse form having a repetition
frequency of between 10 and 350kHz and having a positive portion of a
duration less than that of a negative portion.

19. A method of plasma sputtering a target comprising a metal
chalcogenide capable of forming either an amorphous or a crystalline phase
of a material of the target on a substrate,
comprising:
maintaining a temperature of a shield in the sputtering chamber to a
temperature at which the crystalline and not the amorphous phase forms on
the shield by coupling a heat source to the shield during the plasma
sputtering of the target.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a), the Examiner rejects independent claim 1
as unpatentable over Czubatyj (US 5,825,046 patented Oct. 20, 1998) in
view of Li (US 2005/0103621 A1 published May 19, 2005) and Brodsky
(US 3,716,844 patented Feb. 13, 1973) and rejects dependent claims 2-5, 9-
15, 22, and 23 as unpatentable over these references alone or further in view
of other prior art.

Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648

4
The Examiner concludes that, in view of Brodsky, it would have been
obvious to maintain the temperature of Czubatyj's substrate such that the
metal chalcogenide deposits in crystalline form as required by claim 1 (Ans.
6-7).

Appellants argue that neither Czubatyj nor Brodsky contains any
teaching or suggestion of the claim 1 requirement for maintaining substrate
temperature such that the metal chalcogenide deposits in crystalline form
(App. Br. 9-10). Appellants further argue that, contrary to the Examiner's
position, Brodsky expressly teaches depositing the amorphous form while
maintaining the temperature below a critical temperature so that the
deposited film does not crystallize (id. at 9).

Appellants' arguments are persuasive. As correctly explained by
Appellants, Brodsky indisputably teaches depositing an amorphous form and
maintaining sub-critical temperatures to avoid the crystalline form (Brodsky
Col. 3, ll. 18-22). While Czubatyj teaches that the substrate may be heated
to control morphology of the phase-change material (col. 9, l. 65-col. 10, l.
2), we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not provided this record
with justification for equating Czubatyj's morphology with the crystalline
deposition required by claim 1 (Reply Br. 2).

For the above reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's § 103
rejection of independent claim 1 over Czubatyj, Li, and Brodsky or the
Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648

5
corresponding § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 9-15, 22, and 23
over these references alone or further in view of other prior art.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects independent claim 19
as unpatentable over Brodsky in view of Li and further in view of Ovshinsky
(US 5,166,758 patented Nov. 24, 1992), Katsura (US 4,933,063 patented
Jun. 12, 1990), and Yamada (US 5,744,016 patented Apr. 28, 1998) and
rejects dependent claims 20 and 25 as unpatentable over these references
alone or further in view of other prior art.

This rejection relies on the Examiner's finding that Brodsky, Li, and
Ovshinsky "teach maintaining the substrate at a heated temperature to
deposit crystalline films" (Ans. 15).

The Examiner's finding is not supported by the record of this appeal.
As explained above, Appellants correctly argue that Brodsky teaches
depositing an amorphous form and maintaining sub-critical temperatures in
order to avoid the crystalline form. Appellants also correctly argue that
Ovshinsky teaches depositing an amorphous form rather than the claimed
crystalline form (App. Br. 12; Ovshinsky col. 10, ll. 12-17). Finally, the Li
reference disclosures cited by the Examiner (i.e., the Li Abst. and para.
[00053] (see, e.g., Ans. 6, 13)) contain no teaching or suggestion of
"maintaining the substrate at a heated temperature to deposit crystalline
films" (id. at 15).

Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648

6
It follows that we also cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of independent claim 19 as unpatentable over Brodsky, Li, Ovshinsky,
Katsura, and Yamada or the corresponding § 103 rejections of dependent
claims 20 and 25 as unpatentable over these references alone or further in
view of other prior art.

Finally, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner rejects independent
claim 16 as unpatentable over Li in view of Sellers (US 5,810,982 patented
Sep. 22, 1998) and rejects dependent claims 17, 18, and 24 as unpatentable
over these references alone or further in view of other prior art.

As an initial matter, we observe that Appellants do not present
separate arguments specifically directed to the dependent claims under
rejection including separately rejected dependent claim 24 (App. Br. 11-12).
Therefore, dependent claims 17, 18, and 24 will stand or fall with
independent claim 16.

The Examiner finds that Li teaches applying a repetitive pulse form to
a metal chalcogenide target at a repetition frequency within the claim 16
range (Ans. 13). The Examiner concedes that Li does not teach a repetitive
pulse form having a positive portion of a duration less than that of a negative
portion as claimed but finds that Sellers teaches this claim feature (id.).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
prima facie obvious to provide the repetitive pulse form of Li with a positive
Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648

7
portion duration less than that of a negative portion in accordance with the
teaching of Sellers (id. at 14).

Appellants argue that the pulsing of Sellers is applied to a reactive
sputter deposition to prevent arcing and that Li does not involve reactive
sputtering or the problems solved by Sellers (App. Br. 11-12)1.

In the “Response to Argument” section of the Answer, the Examiner
explains that the teaching of Sellers relates to conventional as well as
reactive sputtering and therefore is applicable to the conventional sputtering
of Li (Ans. 25 citing Sellers col. 4, ll. 14-22). We agree with this
explanation and observe that Appellants do not refute it in their Reply Brief.
We further observe that Li seeks to avoid target arcing (para. [0047]) and
that target arcing is eliminated by the Sellers process (col. 4, ll. 14-17) as
Appellants acknowledge (App. Br. 11).

Under these circumstances, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Li and Sellers in
the manner proposed above in order to avoid target arcing. On this record,

1 Appellants also argue that "Li . . . does not satisfy the claim limitation that
the metal chalcogenide is capable of forming in either an amorphous or a
crystalline form" (id. at 11). This argument and the Examiner's response
thereto (Ans. 25-26) are not relevant to the rejection under review because
claim 16 contains no such limitation.
Appeal 2012-000951
Application 11/778,648

8
Appellants have failed to show error in the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion.

We sustain, therefore, the Examiner's § 103 rejection of independent
claim 16 as unpatentable over Li in view of Sellers as well as the § 103
rejections of dependent claims 17, 18, and 24 as unpatentable over these
references alone or further in view of other prior art.

In summary, we have sustained the rejections of claims 16-18 and 24
but not the rejections of claims 1-5, 9-15, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25.

The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tc