Ex Parte Becknell et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201310249962 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation