Ex Parte Zhou

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2017

13310311 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2017)

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.
13/310,311 12/02/2011 MING ZHOU 803-2F-017 3836
23935 7590 07/03/2017
KOPPEL, PATRICK, HEYBL & PHILPOTT
2815 Townsgate Road
SUITE 215
Westlake Village, CA 91361-5827
EXAMINER
WITTENBERG, STEFANIE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/03/2017 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):
GENERALMAIL@KOPPELPATENT.COM
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
usptointake@koppelpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING ZHOU1
Appeal 2016-002681
Application 13/310,311
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and
JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—8, and 10-12. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. §6.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for manufacturing
semiconductor devices comprising applying a dual pulse power to the
semiconductor device during metal electroplating a part of the
semiconductor device and applying ultrasonic energy to said semiconductor
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Semiconductor
Manufacturing International (Beijing) Corp. See Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002681
Application 13/310,311
device during the metal electroplating. (Spec. 17). Independent claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method for manufacturing semiconductor devices,
comprising:
applying a dual pulse power to the semiconductor device during
metal electroplating on a part of the semiconductor device, and
applying an ultrasonic wave to the semiconductor device during
the metal electroplating;
wherein the dual pulse power has a pulse frequency ranging
from 1800 kHz to 5000 kHz;
wherein the dual pulse power has a ratio of forward-pulse
current to inverse-pulse current ranging from 5:1 to 10:1 during
one pulse cycle;
wherein the dual pulse power has a ratio of forward-pulse
duration to inverse-pulse duration ranging from 10:1 to 20:1
during one pulse cycle; and
wherein said ultrasonic wave has a frequency of 1000 Hz to
5000 Hz and a power of 50 W to 1500 W.
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1, 2, 6—8, and 10-12 as unpatentable over the
combination of Savastiouk et al. (US 2008/0271995 Al, published
Nov. 6, 2008)(“Savastiouk”), Taylor et al. (US 6,210,555 Bl, issued
Apr. 3, 2001)(“Taylor”), Wobking (US 4,140,596, issued Feb.20,
1979)(“Wobking”), and Menini et al. (US 6,398,937 Bl, issued June
4, 2002)(“Menini”). (App. Br. 5—13; Final Act. 3—8).
2
Appeal 2016-002681
Application 13/310,311
OPINION2
Upon consideration of the evidence in this appeal record in light of the
respective positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellant, we determine
that Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
determination that the combination of Savastiouk, Taylor, Wobking and
Menini would have suggested a method of making a semiconductor device
wherein the pulse frequency ranged from 1800 kHz to 5000 kHz as required
by independent claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a)
rejections of the above claims for the reasons set forth in the Briefs. We add
the following.
The Examiner has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the subject matter recited in the claims on appeal. In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he [patent] examiner
bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of
presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.”); see also In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365—66 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that while “the applicant
must identify to the Board what the examiner did wrong, . . . the examiner
retains the burden to show [unpatentability]”).
According to the Examiner: Savastiouk teaches the concept of
combining reverse pulse electroplating with ultrasonic treatment for forming
metal within openings. (Final Act. 3—4). The Examiner cited Taylor,
Wobking and Menini for suggesting the claimed operating parameters to
persons of ordinary skill in the art. (Final Act. 4). The Examiner
determined the selection of the claimed parameters would have been obvious
2 We limit our discussion to independent claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-002681
Application 13/310,311
modifications to the method of Savastiouk. (Final Act. 6). The Examiner
cited Taylor for suggesting the pulse frequency ranged from 1800 kHz to
5000 kHz. According to the Examiner, “[although Taylor describes a
particular method wherein the frequency ranges from 10 - 5000 Hz
(abstract), it would have been obvious as the time of the invention to
produce a method of making a semiconductor device wherein the pulse
frequency ranged from 1800 kHz to 5000 kHz.” (Final Act. 4). The
Examiner cited Wobking for teaching a method for improving the output of
cathodically deposited metal. (Final Act. 5—6). The Examiner cited Menini
for disclosing an ultrasonically assisted plating bath wherein the ultrasonic
transducers operate at a frequency between 20 kHz and 60 kHz. (Final Act.
6). The Examiner determined the selection of the claimed parameters would
have been obvious modifications to the method of Savastiouk. The
Examiner further determined a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation. (Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues Savastiouk discloses a particular method of reverse
pulse plating of a substrate, in which the electric (current or voltage) pulse is
synchronized, having a frequency less than 0.1 Hz, with the sonic agitation.
(App. Br. 6—9; Savastiouk: Figs. 3-5 and related descriptions). Appellant
argues Savastiouk never discloses, teaches, or suggests the invention can be
applied to high frequency pulses required by the claimed invention. (App.
Br. 9).
Appellant further argues Taylor cannot be combined with Savastiouk:
at least because although Taylor discloses a pulse frequency of
5 kHz (see Taylor: Abstract). Indeed, the turning on/off and
holding of the agitation power and/or the functioning of the
agitation power to the solution or the work piece under process
4
Appeal 2016-002681
Application 13/310,311
still necessarily require so much time that a frequency of 5 kHz
would not be applicable to Savastiouk’s solution. In other
words, because of the nature of the Savastiouk, those with
ordinary skill in the art would not apply a high frequency (as
compared to the 0.1 Hz of Savastiouk) or even a much higher
frequency of 1800 kHz to 5000 kHz to the solution of
Savastiouk to try to obtain the claimed invention, unless they
are in the light of the disclosure of the present application.
(Reply Br. 11).
We agree with Appellant that the combination of Savastiouk, Taylor,
Wobking and Menini would not have suggested a method of making a
semiconductor device wherein the pulse frequency ranged from 1800 kHz to
5000 kHz as required by independent claim 1. Taylor discloses a pulse
frequency of 0.010—5 kHz (abstract) which is substantially below the
frequency of 1800 kHz to 5000 kHz as required by the claimed invention.
Nowhere does Taylor recognize the importance of increasing the
pulse frequency of 1800 kHz to 5000 kHz (substantially higher than pulse
frequency of Taylor referred to by the Examiner). Nor does Taylor
recognize the importance of having a pulse frequency of 1800 kHz to 5000
kHz which is substantially outside the range disclosed in Taylor. As stated
by the predecessor court to our reviewing court in In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904,
907 (CCPA 1972):
Where, as here, the prior art disclosure suggests the outer limit
of the range of suitable values, and that the optimum resides
within that range, and where there are indications elsewhere
that in fact the optimum should be sought within that range, the
determination of optimum values outside that range may not be
obvious.
On this record, the Examiner does not identity any teachings in Taylor
that indicates or would have suggested the pulse frequency of 1800 kHz to
5
Appeal 2016-002681
Application 13/310,311
5000 kHz recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner has not adequately
explained or directed us to evidence to establish why a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have applied a high pulse frequency of 1800 kHz to
5000 kHz to the solution of Savastiouk to obtain the claimed invention.
Accordingly, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,2, 6—8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
ORDER
The Examiner’s prior art rejections of claims 1,2, 6—8, and 10—12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
6