Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 17, 2021

2020006774 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2021)

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.
15/849,271 12/20/2017 Hiroki HATTA 1022.0082C 4794
27896 7590 09/17/2021
EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
ROSSOSHEK, YELENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2851
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2021 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HIROKI HATTA and HIDEKI HORITA
Appeal 2020-006774
Application 15/849,271
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kuribayashi et al. (US 2015/0087159 A1, pub. Mar. 26,
2015) in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US 2015/0152551 A1, pub. June 4,
2015). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed May 12, 2020, at 3.
Appeal 2020-006774
Application 15/849,271

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention recited in the claims on appeal relates to a method of
manufacturing a semiconductor device, and an apparatus and a non-
transitory computer-readable recording medium for performing the method.
Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 20, 2017, ¶ 2.2 Appellant discloses
that the method is capable of controlling a thickness distribution of a film
formed on a surface of a substrate. Id. ¶ 4. Appellant discloses that the
method includes forming the film on the substrate by performing a cycle of
steps a predetermined number of times, wherein the cycle comprises: (a)
supplying a source to the substrate in a process chamber; (b) exhausting the
source from the chamber; (c) supplying a reactant to the substrate in the
chamber; and (d) exhausting the reactant from the process chamber. Id. ¶ 5.
Appellant further discloses that the cycle includes at least one of: (e) after a
first predetermined time elapses from a start of (b), starting step (c) with the
source remaining in a center portion of the substrate surface; and (f) after a
second predetermined time elapses from a start of (d), starting step (a) with
the reactant remaining in a center portion of the substrate surface. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device,
comprising:
forming a film on a substrate by performing a cycle a
predetermined number of times, the cycle comprising:

2 This Decision also cites to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated
September 16, 2019 and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated July 6,
2020.
Appeal 2020-006774
Application 15/849,271

3
(a) supplying a source to the substrate accommodated in
a process chamber;
(b) exhausting the source from the process chamber;
(c) supplying a reactant to the substrate accommodated in
the process chamber; and
(d) exhausting the reactant from the process chamber,
wherein (a) through (d) are performed non-
simultaneously, and the cycle further comprises at least one of:
(e) starting (c) in a state where the source is removed
from a peripheral portion of a surface of the substrate and
remains in a center portion of the surface of the substrate after a
first predetermined time elapses from a start of (b) such that the
source is present not in the peripheral portion but in the center
portion at a time when (c) is started; and
(f) starting (a) in a state where the reactant is removed
from the peripheral portion of the surface of the substrate and
remains in the center portion of the surface of the substrate after
a second predetermined time elapses from a start of (d) such
that the reactant is present not in the peripheral portion but in
the center portion at a time when (a) is started,
wherein the center portion is a center portion in a
horizontal direction of the surface of the substrate and the
peripheral portion is a peripheral portion in the horizontal
direction of the surface of the substrate.
Independent claim 14 recites a substrate processing apparatus
comprising source and reactant supply systems configured to supply a
source and reactant to the substrate in a process chamber, an exhaust system
configured to exhaust the process chamber, and a controller configured to
control the source supply, reactant supply, and exhaust systems to perform a
process substantially as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2020-006774
Application 15/849,271

4
Independent claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable
medium storing a program for causing a substrate processing apparatus to
perform a process substantially as recited in claim 1.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the record
before us, we are not persuaded of reversible error in this rejection. We add
the following for emphasis.
The Examiner finds that Kuribayashi alone discloses a method as
recited in claim 1, including step (e), wherein a reactant is supplied to the
substrate while a source remains in a center portion of the substrate surface,
and step (f), wherein a source is supplied to the substrate while a reactant
remains in a center portion of the substrate surface. Final Act. 3–4.
However, the Examiner finds that Kuribayashi lacks specifics regarding
removing gas from a peripheral portion of a surface of the substrate. Id. at 4.
The Examiner finds that Yamaguchi teaches performing a process
substantially as recited in claim 1, including steps (e) and (f), wherein
reaction byproducts and reactants are removed from a peripheral portion of
the substrate. Id. at 4, 5. The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to have modified Kuribayashi’s process to use Yamaguchi’s
apparatus for inhibiting generation of byproducts and improve uniformity of
an in-plane substrate surface. Id. at 5, 6.
Appeal 2020-006774
Application 15/849,271

5
Appellant argues that Kuribayashi and Yamaguchi, individually or in
combination, fail to teach, suggest, or render obvious steps (e) and (f) of
claim 1. Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant contends that Yamaguchi teaches
supplying N2 gas into first gas introduction pipe 229a, second gas
introduction pipe 229b, first buffer space 232a, second buffer space 232b,
and process space 201, but does not disclose or suggest that source gas is
present in the center portion, but not in the peripheral portion of the substrate
at a time when the supplying of the reactant is started. Id. at 8. Appellant
also contends that Yamaguchi teaches supplying a larger amount of reactant
gas to the peripheral portion than a center portion of the substrate, but fails
to disclose or suggest that the reactant gas is present in the center portion,
but not in the peripheral portion of the substrate at a time when the
supplying of the source is started. Id. Appellant further contends that
Kuribayashi fails to suggest that there is presence of the source/reactant in
the center portion when the supplying of the reactive gas is started. Id.
We note that Appellant fails to address the Examiner’s findings
regarding Kuribayashi and Yamaguchi in detail, but persists in arguing that
these references, alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or render
steps (e) and (f) to the extent that neither starts the supply of the source or
reactant while the reactant or source, respectively remains in the center
portion of the substrate, but has been exhausted from the peripheral portion
thereof. In this regard, Appellant does not address with any particularity
Kuribayashi’s teaching that, when forming films on a large diameter
substrate by alternately supplying a plurality of types of source gases onto
the substrate, the source gases remain in the center portion thereof.
Kuribayashi ¶ 7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
Appeal 2020-006774
Application 15/849,271

6
Kuribayashi’s plurality of types of source gases would include both source
and reactant gases that are alternately supplied to the substrate a
predetermined number of times until a desired film thickness had been
formed, especially in light of Kuribayashi’s Figure 4. Thus, although we
agree with Appellant that the remainder of Kuribayashi’s disclosure is
directed to efficiently removing a source gas (or reactant gas) remaining on a
substrate (from a center portion thereof),3 Appellant fails to address the
process recited in Kuribayashi’s paragraph 7, which suggests the process of
claim 1. As such, Appellant fails to identify reversible error in the
obviousness rejection of process claims 1–13 over Kuribayashi and
Yamaguchi.
We further note that Appellant fails to address with any particularity
the Examiner’s reasoning for combining Kuribayashi and Yamaguchi so as
to provide an apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium for
performing the process disclosed in Kuribayashi. As such, Appellant fails to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
apparatus claim 14 and computer-readable medium claim 15 over the
combination of Kuribayashi and Yamaguchi.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kuribayashi in
view of Yamaguchi.

3 Kuribayashi and Yamaguchi specifically teach improved processes for
purging source and reactant gases from the center portion of the substrate
prior to supplying the next source or reactant gas to the substrate.
Kuribayashi ¶¶ 8, 70, 77, 94–96; Yamaguchi ¶¶ 72, 76, 89, 116.
Appeal 2020-006774
Application 15/849,271

7
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kuribayashi in view of
Yamaguchi is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103 Kuribayashi,
Yamaguchi
1–15

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED