Tae Ho. Yoon et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 7, 2020

12178300 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2020)

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.
12/178,300 07/23/2008 Tae Ho Yoon ASMGEN.024AUS 6033
20995 7590 02/07/2020
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
MILLER, MICHAEL G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1712
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2020 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):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TAE HO YOON, HYUNG SANG PARK, and YONG MIN YOO
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JEFFREY R. SNAY, and
MICHAEL G. MCMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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, 3–5, 8, 9, 11–18, 29, and 30. See
Final Act. 1. 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 the real party in interest as the assignee of
record, ASM Genitech Korea Ltd. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method of depositing a silicon oxide film
over a substrate in a cycle of a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition
(PEALD) process. See, e.g., claim 1. The process involves supplying a
silicon source gas to a reactor and generating an oxygen plasma after
stopping the supply of the silicon source gas. Id. The silicon source gas is
N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane (SiH2[N(C2H5)2]2). The oxygen gas may
be supplied substantially continuously throughout the process or supplied
only when generating the oxygen plasma. Spec. ¶ 25. The process is shown
in the flowchart of Figure 1. Spec. ¶¶ 19–27. Figure 4 depicts a second
embodiment with further steps. The second embodiment has further cycles
where the gases are supplied in a different direction. Spec. ¶¶ 40–41.
Claim 1, reproduced below with references to the Specification and
Figures to exemplify the scope of the claim, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1 A method of depositing a silicon oxide film over a
substrate, the method comprising one or more plasma enhanced
atomic layer deposition cycles [Fig. 1 (steps 110–140); Fig. 4
(e.g., 1st cycle)], each of the one or more plasma enhanced
atomic layer deposition cycles [e.g. 1st cycle] comprising:
supplying a silicon source gas comprising N,N,N’,N’-
tetraethyldiaminosilane (SiH2[N(C2H5)2]2) over a substrate in a
reactor [Fig. 1 (step 110); Fig. 4 (t1)]; and
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
3
[sic2]
providing an oxygen-containing gas [Spec. ¶ 25 (only at
Fig. 1 step 110 or continuously as shown in Fig. 4 (R gas))] and
generating an oxygen plasma over the substrate in the reactor
[Fig. 1 (step 130)],
such that the silicon oxide film comprises at least one of
atomic nitrogen (N) and carbon (C) at less than 5 atomic%,
wherein a deposition rate for at least one of the one or
more deposition cycles is from 1.1 Å/cycle to 2.5 Å/cycle, and
wherein generating the oxygen plasma [Fig. 1 (step
130)] comprises generating the oxygen plasma after stopping
supply of the silicon source gas [Fig. 1 (130); Fig. 4 (t2)].
Appeal Br. 21 (Claims Appendix).

2 Claim 1 recites both N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane (SiH2[N(C2H5)2]2)
and a generic chemical formula of which N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane
(SiH2[N(C2H5)2]2) is a species. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 22–23. On April 6, 2016
Appellant filed an amendment adding N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane
(SiH2[N(C2H5)2]2) and deleting recitations associated with the generic
formula, but did not delete the generic chemical formula itself. Given this
history, we do not interpret claim 1 as requiring a diaminosilane separate
from N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane (SiH2[N(C2H5)2]2). Should
prosecution continue, the generic formula should be deleted to avoid 35
U.S.C. § 112 issues.

Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
4
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
A. Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 11–13, 15–18, 29, and 30 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Dussarrat ’4903 as evidenced by
Filmetrics;4
B. Claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dussarrat ’490;
C. Claim 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dussarrat ’490 in view of Androshuk;5
D. Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11, 15–18, 29, and 30 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dussarrat ’5256 in view of Lee7 and Park;8
E. Claims 12 and 13 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Dussarrat ’525 in view of Lee and Park and further in view of
Moghadam;9
F. Claim 14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Dussarrat ’525 in view of Lee, Park, and Moghadam, and further in view of
Androshuk.

3 Dussarrat, US 2009/0075490 A1, published March 19, 2009.
4 Refractive Index of SiO2, Fused Silica, Silica, Silicon Dioxide, Thermal
Oxide, Thermal Oxide, http://www.filmetrics.com/refractive-index-
database/SiO2/Fused-Silica-Silica-Silicon-Dioxide-Thermal-Oxide-
ThermalOxide (accessed 2015).
5 Androshuk et al., US 3,424,661, issued Jan. 28, 1969.
6 Dussarrat et al., WO 2006/097525 A2, published Sept. 21, 2006.
7 Lee et al., US 5,660,895, issued Aug. 26, 1997.
8 Park et al., US 2005/0223982 A1, published Oct. 13, 2005.
9 Moghadam et al., US 2004/0115898 A1, published June 17, 2004.
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
5
OPINION
Rejections A–C: The rejections relying on Dussarrat ’490
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 8, 11–13, 15–18, 29, and 30
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Dussarrat ’490 as
evidenced by Filmetrics, rejects claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Dussarrat ’490, and adds Androshuk to reject claim 14.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in relying on Dussarrat
’490 because Dussarrat ’490 is not available as prior art. Appeal Br. 8–11;
Reply Br. 3–5. To support the contention, Appellant relies on evidence of
prior inventorship submitted in two Declarations (First Yoo Declaration10
and Second Yoo Declaration11).
The Examiner determines that Appellant’s evidence is insufficient to
show prior inventorship because the evidence does not show that Appellant
conceived of a process with a deposition rate over the entire range of claim
1, i.e., the range of 1.1 to 2.5 Å/cycle. Ans. 3–6.
The sole issue on appeal for the rejections relying on Dussrarrat ’490
is: Has Appellant identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that Appellant’s evidence of prior inventorship is insufficient
to remove Dussarrat ’490 as prior art evidence?
Appellant has not shown reversible error.
In the First Yoo Declaration, Yoo declares that the co-inventors
conceived of the invention recited in the claims prior to September 18, 2007,
the effective filing date of Dussarrat ’490. First Yoo Decl. ¶ 4. Yoo further

10 Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 filed April 5, 2016 by inventor Yong
Min Yoo.
11 Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 filed January 2, 2017 by inventor
Yong Min Yoo.
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
6
declares that Exhibit A is a copy of an Invention Disclosure Form dated
prior to September 18, 2007 describing PEALD processes that were
developed for forming SiO2 films using the precursor of the claims. First
Yoo Decl. ¶ 5.
Exhibit A is entitled an Invention Disclosure Form and includes a
description section for describing how to carry out the invention. Exhibit A,
§ (b). The Exhibit further includes boxed translated portions of section (b)
with the following information:
A first box includes the following:
1. Deposition condition:
Temp. 50–350degC
Pressure: 1.5–3 torr
O2 flow rate: 50–200 sccm
Plasma power: 50–200W
2. Under the condition of 200degC, 3 Torr, O2 100 sccm,
Plasma power 50W:
Film growth rate: 1.21 Å/sec
Uniformity: 4%
No incubation cycle

A second box includes the following:
AES analysis
Impurities: carbon and nitrogen less than a few percent
RI: valve n=1.459–1.483

Exhibit A, § (b) (translations).
Yoo declares that the translated portions provide deposition conditions
and report results of experiments carried out prior to September 18, 2007.
First Yoo Decl. ¶ 6. According to Yoo, these experiments involved
depositing silicon oxide by PEALD. Id. Yoo further declares that 100
deposition cycles were carried out with a unit cycle time of 1.2 sec./cycle
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
7
and after the 100 cycles, a film of 145 Å was observed, which corresponds
to a per cycle deposition rate of 1.45 Å/cycle. First Yoo Decl. ¶ 7.
The Examiner does not dispute that Exhibit A shows that the
inventors conceived of a process that achieved a deposition rate of 1.45
Å/cycle before the effective filing date of Dussarrat ’490. Ans. 4. Although
1.45 Å/cycle is higher than 1.1 Å/cycle, it is much lower than 2.5 Å/cycle,
the upper end point of Appellant’s range recited in claim 1.
In the Second Yoo Declaration, Yoo declares that “at the time the
experiment was carried out we understood that a deposition rate of at least
from 1.1 Å/cycle to 2.5 Å/cycle could be obtained in a PEALD process for
depositing silicon oxide films using N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane, the
silicon source gas of Claim 1.” Second Yoo Decl. ¶ 7.
Appellant contends that the above statement in the Second Yoo
Declaration “provides explicit support for the claimed deposition rate” and
“itself is clearly sufficient ‘demonstrative evidence’ of prior conception.”
Appeal Br. 9. However, Yoo’s bare statement is not enough. “[A]n
inventor's testimony, standing alone, is insufficient to prove conception—
some form of corroboration must be shown.” Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d
1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is because “such facile means of
establishing priority of invention would, in many cases, offer great
temptation to perjury” as well as have the effect of virtually precluding
rebuttal. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting
Mergenthaler v. Scudder, 11 App. D.C. 264, 278 (D.C. Cir. 1897)).
Appellant attempts to distinguish Mergenthaler on the basis that the
inventors here “had actually practiced the claimed invention and thus had a
complete grasp of the means to achieve the claimed deposition rate.” Appeal
Br. 10. However, the evidence does not support this argument. Figures 3 and
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
8
4 of Exhibit A resemble Figures 2 and 3 of Appellant’s Specification. The
Specification describes Figures 2 and 3 as illustrating the atomic emission
spectroscopy (AES) results and refractive index results for the first
embodiment. Spec. ¶¶ 13–14. The close similarity of the figures in Exhibit A
to Figures 2 and 3 of the Specification provides some evidence that the
method of Exhibit A was conducted according to the first disclosed
embodiment of the Specification. Appellant’s Specification reports a 2.5
Å/cycle deposition rate, but this deposition rate was achieved using the two
directional gas flow of the second embodiment. Spec. ¶ 47 and Table 1.
Appellant provides no persuasive basis to conclude that the experiments of
Exhibit A were carried out with the two directional flow of the second
embodiment. Thus, Appellant has not provided corroborating evidence that
shows the inventors had conceived of a PEALD process able to achieve the
2.5 Å/cycle deposition rate of claim 1.
Conception is “the formation, in the mind of the inventor of a definite
and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is
thereafter to be applied in practice.” REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC v. Neste Oil
Oyj, 841 F.3d 954, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the evidence tends to show
that to be complete and operative for achieving a 2.5 Å/cycle deposition rate
the process required the two directional flow described in the second
embodiment. Appellant has not provided corroborating evidence that the
inventors conceived of the two directional flow process before the effective
filing date of Dussarrat ’490.
Appellant points out that a “rule of reason” is applied to determine
whether the inventor’s prior conception testimony has been corroborated and
this requires an evaluation of all pertinent evidence to determine the
credibility of the inventor’s story. Appeal Br. 10–11. We agree a rule of
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
9
reason applies. See Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prod.,
Inc., 927 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Whether there is sufficient
corroboration is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, which requires all
pertinent evidence to be examined to determine whether the inventor’s
testimony is credible.”). We have considered the totality of the evidence on
the record in this appeal including the statements in the Yoo Declarations
and the Specification. Based on our review, we determine that Appellant has
not provided corroboration for Yoo’s statement that “at the time the
experiment was carried out we understood that a deposition rate of at least
from 1.1 Å/cycle to 2.5 Å/cycle could be obtained.”
The Examiner determines that Exhibit A further lacks a disclosure of
the BDEAS flow rate and without this information it cannot be concluded
that the species conceived by Appellants is the same as that of Dussrrat ’490.
Ans. 4–6 (citing to (Dussarrat ’490 Example 9 at ¶¶ 228–238)). Appellant
responds that the “precursor flow rate is not an element of the claims and
that the precursor flow rate is not relevant to corroboration of the conception
of the deposition rate.” Reply Br. 3. Although Appellant is correct that claim
1 does not explicitly recite the flow rate of the silicon source gas, there is a
reasonable basis to believe the flow rate of this reactant would have an effect
on the deposition rate given it is a feedstock for the silicon material that is to
be deposited. That being said, it appears the Examiner’s purpose was to
address the question of whether Appellant has shown conception of as much
as what was taught in Dussarrat ’490. See In re Stempel, 241 F.2d 755, 759
(C.C.P.A. 1957) (“all the applicant can be required to show is priority with
respect to so much of the claimed invention as the reference happens to
show.”). Appellant does not argue that its evidence of conception is
commensurate in scope with the silicon oxide deposition process taught by
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
10
Dussarrat ’490. See, e.g., Reply Br. 3 (“Appellant has not suggested that
Exhibit A duplicates a process disclosed in Dussarrat ’490”). Thus, we do
not consider that question here.
We determine that Appellant has not identified a reversible error in
the Examiner’s use of Dussarrat ’490 in Rejections A–C.
Rejections D–F
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11, 15–18, 29, and 30 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dussarrat ’525 in view of Lee
and Park. The Examiner adds Mognadam to reject claims 12 and 13. The
Examiner further adds Androshuk to reject claim 14.
Two issues arise. The first issue is whether Appellant has identified a
reversible error in the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art
practicing the PEALD process suggested by the combination of prior art
would have reasonably expected to deposit a silicon oxide film at a
deposition rate in the range of from 1.1 to 2.5 Å/cycle to form a film at a
purity where at least one of nitrogen and carbon is present at a concentration
of less than 5 atomic %. The second issue is whether Appellant has
demonstrated an unexpected result that supports a conclusion of
nonobviousness when all the evidence is weighed together.
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
findings with regard to the deposition rate and purity, nor has Appellant
provided the necessary evidence of unexpected results.
There is no dispute that Dussarrat ’525 teaches a method of depositing
a silicon oxide film over a substrate by atomic layer deposition (ALD) where
each cycle involves supplying N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane (BDEAS)
followed by providing an oxygen-containing gas. Final Act. 12–13;
Dussarrat ’525 2–4.
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
11
The Examiner acknowledges that Dussarrat ’525 “does not fairly
teach the generation of an oxygen plasma over the substrate in the reactor.”
Final Act. 13. The Examiner, however, concludes that it would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to have used oxygen plasma in the ALD process of Dussarrat ’525
because Lee provides evidence that “oxygen plasma is known to be suitable
for the purpose.” Final Act. 13.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s
finding of a suggestion in the art to apply a plasma to the oxygen-generating
gas of Dussarrat ’525.12 Instead, Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s
determination that because the suggested PEALD process uses the same
materials (e.g. BDEAS and oxygen/ozone) in the same process steps as the
instant invention, the purity and the deposition rate of the instant invention
“would also be derived from the process” of the prior art. Final Act. 13. The
Examiner further relies on Park as evidence that the use of plasma would
have been expected to increase the deposition rate. Final Act. 14.
Appellant contends that the combination does not teach the deposition
rate and purity level of claim 1 nor how the ordinary artisan would have
“derived” the rate and purity level. Appeal Br. 12–13. Appellant relies on the
Declaration of Suvi Haukka dated January 27, 2016 (Haukka Decl.) to
support the argument. Appeal Br. 13–15.

12 We agree with Appellant’s handling of this issue. There can be no real
dispute that it was known in the art to supply oxygen or ozone in the form a
plasma in the type of ALD process taught by Dussarrat ’525. See, e.g., U.S.
Patent 6,391,803 B1 to Kim et al., issued May 21, 2002 (disclosing using O2
or O3 plasma with an aminosilane silicon source gas (TDMAS) in an ALD
process for depositing silicon oxide (col. 3, ll. 16–20; col. 5, ll. 54–56)).
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
12
Although the Examiner’s language is inartful, we determine that
Appellant has not identified a reversible error in the Examiner’s
determinations as to the purity and deposition rate. The reasons become
clear when one considers the teachings of Dussarrat ’525, the known use of
oxygen plasma in processes such as that of Dussarrat ’525, and the Haukka
Declaration together.
Dussarrat ’525, like Appellant, seeks to form silicon oxide films
during the manufacture of semiconductor devices. Compare Dussarrat ’525
1:8–30, with Spec. ¶ 3. Dussarrat ’525 teaches an ALD process using an
oxygen source and an aminosilane, such as BDEAS, that produces “[h]igh
quality films, with very low carbon and hydrogen contents,” which are
deposited between 200 and 400°C and 0.1–10 Torr. Dussarrat ’525 5:19–
6:11. Thus, Dussarrat ’525 seeks low carbon content and uses temperatures
within Appellant’s range and pressures at the same range.
Dussarrat ’525 discloses examples that vary the identity of the silicon
source gas and perform ALD using an ozone/oxygen mixed gas or ozone
alone. Dussarrat ’525 Examples 1–7.
The first three examples use trisilylamine (TSA) as the silicon source
gas and ozone/oxygen as the oxygen-containing gas. Dussarrat ’525
Examples 1–3 at 17:28–19:24. Dussarrat ’525 reports a deposition rate of
about 1.2–1.7 Å/cycle for these examples. Dussarrat ’525 at 19:7–8.
Example 5 reports a deposition rate of 0.3 Å/cycle for
bis(dimethylamino)silane (BDMAS) and ozone. Dussarrat ’525 at 20:28–32.
Example 6 reports a deposition rate of 0.2 Å/cycle for
tris(dimethylamino)silane (TriDMAS) and ozone. Dussarrat’525 at 21:1–6.
Example 4 uses BDEAS, the silicon source gas of Appellant’s claims,
and ozone/oxygen as the oxygen-containing gas. Dussarrat ’525 at 19:26–
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
13
20–26. Dussarrat ’525 states that experiments were performed to determine
deposition rate, but Dussarrat ’525 does not report the deposition rate.
Dussarrat ’525 at 20:13–14. Dussarrat ’525 reports that films deposited at
200, 250, 300, 350, and 400°C did not include nitrogen or carbon. Dussarat
’525 at 20:16-18. Thus, Dussarrat ’525 discloses a purity within the claimed
range, but is silent as to the deposition rate. Moreover, Dussarrat ’525 is also
silent about energizing the oxygen-containing gas to form a plasma.
Haukka declares that
taking into consideration the cited prior art (including
Dussarrat) I would not have expected that a the [sic] recited
silicon oxide film deposition process utilizing a silicon source
gas comprising N,N,N’,N’-tetraethyldiaminosilane and an
oxygen plasma generated from an oxygen-containing gas could
deposit a high quality silicon oxide film (e.g., with the recited
purity) at deposition rates of at least 1.1 Å/cycle.
Haukka Decl. ¶ 9. Haukka bases this opinion on the fact that Dussarrat’525
is silent as to deposition rate in Example 4. Haukka further declares that
“[g]iven that deposition rates are disclosed for other Examples in Dussarrat,
I would understand the exclusion of a deposition rate from Example 4 of
Dussarrat to be intentional, likely because the example could only achieve a
very low deposition rate.” Id.
We do not find the opinion of Haukka persuasive because it is based
on speculation with regard to the intention of Dussarrat ’525. We could in
turn speculate that Dussarrat ’525 omitted the deposition rates for the
Example 4 experiments by accident. Either way, speculation is not evidence.
Moreover, Haukka’s opinion does not overcome the fact that
Dussarrat ’525 teaches examples within Example 4 that would have some
deposition rate, albeit unreported. Appellant offers no persuasive objective
evidence, such as experiments carried out under the conditions Dussarrat
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
14
’525 discloses for Example 4, that reasonably indicates that the deposition
rate the ordinary artisan would obtain when following Dussarrat’s process
would be outside the range of claim 1 or that the result when conducting the
process with a plasma was unexpectedly good.
Given that the process of Dussarat ’525 must have some deposition
rate, generating ozone using plasma was known in the art, and, as pointed
out by the Examiner, the materials and process parameters are the same or
similar to those disclosed by Appellant, it is reasonable to conclude that
those of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at deposition rate values
within the range of the claim when carrying out the suggested process.
Appellant has not provided the kind of objective evidence needed to
overcome this determination. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA
1955) (explaining that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed
in the prior art, and the evidence supports a determination that discovery of
the optimum or workable ranges would result from routine experimentation,
the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the particular range values
recited in the claim produce an unexpected result); In re Mayne, 104 F.3d
1339, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that an unsupported assertion is
insufficient to make a showing that “the claimed invention exhibits some
superior property or advantage that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant
art would find surprising or unexpected.”).
With regard to the purity, Haukka declares that
In my view as an expert in the field of atomic layer deposition,
I would not have expected prior to the present invention that a
deposition process including a plasma step would necessarily
provide films having purity levels similar to or the same as a
vapor deposition process without plasma. To the contrary, I
would have expected a plasma step to result in a decrease in
purity.
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
15
Haukka Decl. ¶ 12. This opinion is not persuasive because, as pointed out by
the Examiner, Appellant has not shown that the expected impurity
concentration would be outside the purity levels required by claim 1. Ans. 7.
Dussarrat ’525 is concerned with purity, states that the films have very low
carbon contents, and reports that the films of Example 4 have “neither
nitrogen nor carbon according to in-depth analysis by Auger.” Dussarrat
’525 at 6:9–11 and 20:17–18. Again, it is reasonable to conclude that routine
experimentation would have led to purity levels where either nitrogen or
carbon is present at less than 5 atomic % in a routinely optimized plasma
assisted process. Appellant offers no objective evidence that the result is
unexpected.
Considering the opinion of Haukka along with the evidence in
Dussarrat ’525 and the other prior art, we determine that without a showing
of unexpected results supported by objective evidence, a preponderance of
the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 8, 9, 11–18, 29, and
30 is affirmed.
Appeal 2018-007021
Application 12/178,300
16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 8,
11–13, 15–
18, 29, 30
102(e) Dussarrat ’490,
Filmetrics
1, 3–5, 8,
11–13, 15–
18, 29, 30

9 103(a) Dussarrat ’490 9
14 103(a) Dussarrat ’490,
Androshuk
14
1, 3–5, 8, 9,
11, 15–18,
29, 30
103(a) Dussarrat ’525,
Lee, Park
1, 3–5, 8, 9,
11, 15–18,
29, 30

12, 13 103(a) Dussarrat ’525,
Lee, Park,
Moghadam
12, 13
14 103(a) Dussarrat ’525,
Lee, Park,
Moghadam,
Androshuk
14
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 8, 9,
11–18, 29,
30

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