Ex Parte Becknell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2013

10249962 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013)

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.
10/249,962 05/22/2003 Alan Frederick Becknell 15545-000118 2615
91286 7590 04/30/2013
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C.
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
LUND, JEFFRIE ROBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2013 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 ALAN F. BECKNELL, THOMAS J. BUCKLEY,
DAVID FERRIS, RICHARD E. PINGREE JR.,
PALANIKUMARAN SAKTHIVEL,
ASEEM K. SRIVASTAVA,
and CARLO WALDFRIED
____________

Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and JAMES C.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71,
and 73-82. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.

Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is set
forth below:
1. An axial flow downstream plasma treatment device for treating a
substrate including a low k dielectric material, comprising, in combination:

a substantially oxygen and nitrogen free gas source;

a gas purifier intermediate to the gas source and the plasma-generating
component adapted to reduce oxygen and nitrogen impurity levels to less
than 20 parts per million;

a plasma generating component in fluid communications with the gas
source, the plasma generating component comprising a plasma tube and a
plasma generator coupled to the plasma tube for generating a substantially
oxygen and nitrogen free plasma within the plasma tube from the gas source;

a process chamber in fluid communication with the plasma tube
comprising a baffle plate assembly about an inlet of the process chamber,
wherein the baffle plate assembly comprises a generally planar upper baffle
plate fixedly positioned above a generally planar lower baffle plate, the
upper baffle plate being smaller than the lower baffle plate such that the
upper baffle plate is free from direct contact with other components defining
the plasma processing chamber, the lower baffle plate comprising a plurality
of apertures disposed about a central axis, wherein a dimension of each one
of the plurality of apertures increases from the central axis to an outer edge
of the lower baffle plate, and wherein the baffle plate assembly is positioned
generally parallel to the substrate, wherein the substrate contains a low k
dielectric material;

an exhaust conduit centrally located in a bottom wall of the process
chamber;

an afterburner assembly coupled to the exhaust conduit and
configured for volatilizing byproducts discharged from the process chamber
to prevent deposition of photoresist and byproducts within the process
Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

3
chamber and areas downstream, wherein the exhaust conduit comprises a
gas port intermediate to the process chamber and the afterburner assembly
and wherein the exhaust conduit is axially aligned with the plasma tube; and

an optical detection system optically coupled to the exhaust conduit.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reif et al. (Reif) 4,773,355 Sep. 27, 1988
Carrea et al. (Carrea) 5,985,007 Nov. 16, 1999
Koai et al. (Koai) 6,106,625 Aug. 22, 2000
Herchen et al. (Herchen) 6,159,297 Dec. 12, 2000
Ramaswamy et al. (Ramaswamy) 6,367,412 B1 Apr. 9, 2002
Nguyen 6,444,039 B1 Sep. 3, 2002
Nakatsuka 6,599,367 B1 Jul. 29, 2003
Oluseyi et al. (Oluseyi) 6,633,391 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
Srivastava et al. (Srivastava) US 2002/0144785 A1 Oct. 10, 2002
Kinnard et al. (Kinnard ‘624) US 2003/0012624 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
Waldfried et al. (Waldfried) US 2003/0032300 A1 Feb. 13, 2003
Kinnard (‘331) EP 1 150 331 A2 Oct. 31, 2001

Applicants’ Disclosed Prior Art (ADPA)

THE REJECTIONS

1. Claims 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, and 82 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Nguyen
Nakatsuka, Appellants’ disclosed prior art (hereinafter ADPA),
Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea.

Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

4
2. Claims 27 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as
allegedly being unpatentable over Srivastava, Nguyen, Nakatsuka, ADPA,
Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea as applied to claims 16,
18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, and 82 above, and further in view of Kinnard '624.

3. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71,
73-79, and 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as allegedly being
unpatentable over Srivastava in view of Nguyen, Koai, Nakatsuka, ADPA,
Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea.

4. Claims 14, 15, 27, 28, 80, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as allegedly being unpatentable over Srivastava, Nguyen, Koai,
Nakatsuka, ADPA, Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea as
applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 65, 67, 68, 70,
71, 73-79, and 82 above, and further in view of Kinnard '624.

5. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71,
73-39, and 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as allegedly being
unpatentable over Kinnard '331 in view of Koai, Nakatsuka, Srivastava,
ADPA, Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea.

6. Claims 14, 15, 27, 28, 80 and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as allegedly being unpatentable over Kinnard '331, Koai,
Nakatsuka, Srivastava, ADPA, Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif and
Carrea as applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, and 82
above, and further in view of Kinnard '624.
Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

5
7. Claim 82 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as allegedly being
unpatentable over Kinnard '331 in view of Srivastava, ADPA, Ramaswamy,
Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea.

8. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71,
73-39, and 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as allegedly being
unpatentable over Srivastava, Nguyen, Herchen, ADPA, Ramaswamy,
Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea.

9. Claims 14, 15, 27, 28, 80, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as allegedly being unpatentable over Srivastava, Nguyen, Herchen,
ADPA, Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea as applied to
claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 73-39,
and 82 above and further in view of Kinnard '624.

10. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71,
73-39, and 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as allegedly being
unpatentable over Kinnard '331, Herchen, Srivastava, ADPA, Ramaswamy,
Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea.

11. Claims 14, 15, 27, 28, 80, and 81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), as allegedly being unpatentable over Kinnard '331, Herchen,
Srivastava, ADPA, Ramaswamy, Oluseyi, Waldfried, Reif, and Carrea as
applied to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24-26, 65, 67, 68, 70,
71, 73-39, and 82 above and further in view of Kinnard '624.

Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

6
ANALYSIS
Rejections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 9

Issue: Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been obvious
to have modified the baffle assembly of Srivastava by incorporating the
baffle arrangement of Nguyen while achieving the objectives of Srivastava?
We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE.
Appellants argue that modifying Srivastava as suggested by the
Examiner by replacing Srivastava's upper baffle plate with Nguyen's upper
baffle plate renders Srivastava's apparatus unsuitable for its intended
purpose. Appellants explain that plasma uniformity and creation of a
customized plenum (objectives of Srivastava) would be altered. Reply Br.
10. We agree. The configuration depicted in Figure 5 of Srivastava shows
baffles 54a and 54b result in a customized plenum 113 (depicted in Figure 6
and described in para. [0038]), and also produces a local sheath 122 and a
micro-jet low energy region (as described in para. [0041]). This
configuration also provides for even distribution of the reactive plasma (as
described in paras. [0035] and [0038]). The Examiner’s position lacks an
explanation as to how these effects of the baffle configuration of Srivastava
would likewise be achieved by the proposed modification. For example, the
Examiner’s response made on page 45 of the Answer, or made in the
Supplemental Answer filed on January 7, 2011, does not address this point
raised by Appellants. If the proposed modification would render the prior
art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the instant case, the
preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ position.
Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

7
In view of the above, we therefore reverse each rejection involving the
combination of Srivastava in view of Nguyen (Rejections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, and
9).

Rejections 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11

Issue: Did the Examiner err in determining that Oluseyi teaches the claimed
element of “an optical detection system optically coupled to the exhaust
conduit”?
We answer this question in the affirmative and REVERSE.
It is the Examiner’s position that Oluseyi’s Figure 2 and/or Figure 3
show that the optical detector 22 is positioned to observe the exhaust conduit
via window 20. Ans. 32 and 52. Supplemental Ans. 4-7.1
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s position is in error because
Oluseyi describes that its sensor assembly 18 is in optical communication
with the processing chamber 16 via a window 20, which is disposed in the
housing 14. The housing 14, according to Oluseyi, defines the processing
chamber 16. Oluseyi, col. 3, ll. 33-37. Reply Br. 13.
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’ position. The
description of what is monitored by the spectrum analyzer is set forth in col.
6, ll. 10 through col. 8, ll. 11 of Oluseyi. Beginning in col. 6, l. 10, it is

1 The Examiner, for the first time, presents an alternate position in the
Supplemental Answer that if Oluseyi does not teach an optical detection
system optically coupled to the exhaust conduit, that it would have been
obvious to have added one if monitoring the status of the plasma is so
desired. Supplemental Ans. 6. However, this alternate position is not
supported by objective evidence; rather, it is a stated opinion made by the
Examiner having the appearance of hindsight reasoning.
Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

8
described that the effects that a process has on the substrate and/or film
deposited on the substrate are measured as a function of the spectral
emission of the plasma present. Multiple substrates, for example, are
analyzed during deposition of a silicon containing film thereon. The spectral
response from the plasma is analyzed. The spectra are sensed for the
substrates having films deposited thereon.
Then, in col. 7, ll. 40-45 of Oluseyi, it is described that during
operation, optical energy produced by the plasma 110 is sensed by the
spectrum analyzer 22. Plasma 110 is depicted in Figure 1 as being located
above substrate 90. Substrate 90 is located within the processing chamber
(see Fig. 2). Hence, the plasma 110 that is sensed is located inside the
processing chamber.
Also described is that deleterious effects regarding accuracy of
measurement can occur with the clouding of the chamber window 20
[emphasis added]. Oluyesi, col. 8, ll. 1-11.
The above-mentioned teachings support Appellants’ interpretation of
Oluyesi that the sensor assembly is in optical communication with the
processing chamber where such analysis/sensing would occur (rather than
with the exhaust parts of the system, such as an exhaust conduit, as asserted
by the Examiner).
In view of the above, we therefore reverse Rejections 5, 6, 7, 10, and
11 (each of these rejections involves the Oluseyi reference in the same
manner).

Appeal 2011-003968
Application 10/249,962

9
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Each rejection is reversed.
REVERSED

cam