Ex Parte Bhutta et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 14, 2019

12500433 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/500,433 07/09/2009 84212 7590 The Belles Group, P.C. 337 S. 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 02/19/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Imran A. Bhutta 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. REN0-006-US 2293 EXAMINER KENDALL, BENJAMIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2019 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): uspto@thebellesgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IMRAN A. BHUTTA and SCOTT D. IVINS Appeal2018-004057 Application 12/500,433 Technology Center 1700 Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection2 of claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify "Reno Technologies, Inc." as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief of September 5, 2017 ("Br."), 2. 2 Final Office Action of December 5, 2016 ("Final Act."). In this opinion, we also refer to the Examiner's Answer of December 27, 2017 ("Ans."). No Reply Brief was filed. Appeal2018-004057 Application 12/500,433 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system for providing a substantially uniform potential profile. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for producing a substantially uniform potential profile on a single electrode within a plasma chamber, the system compnsmg: a signal generator, the signal generator adapted to emit a signal with a frequency of at least 30 megahertz; a splitter in electronic communication with the signal generator, the splitter adapted to split the signal into at least first, second, and third output signals; and a signal manipulator in electronic communication with the splitter and the single electrode within the plasma chamber, the signal manipulator comprising a controller configured to, upon the signal manipulator's receipt of the first, second, and third output signals from the splitter: independently manipulate a phase of each of the first and second output signals by setting an initial phase for each of the first and second output signals so that a phase difference exists between the first and second output signals, maintain the third output signal at a constant phase, and manipulate the first and second output signals by simultaneously changing the phase of the first and second output signals incrementally while maintaining the phase difference between the first and second output signals, the manipulated first and second output signals and the third output signal at the constant phase having a frequency of at least 30 megahertz and being simultaneously transmitted to the single electrode to produce a substantially uniform potential profile on the single electrode and in plasma within the plasma chamber to provide one of a substantially uniform depositing of a material on a substrate or a substantially uniform etching of a material from a substrate with the substantially uniform potential profile and the plasma. Claims Appendix (Br. 11 ). 2 Appeal2018-004057 Application 12/500,433 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Stimson Mitrovic US 2009/0202741 Al Aug. 13, 2009 US 2004/0168770 Al Sept. 2, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mitrovic in view of Stimson. Final Act. 3. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("it has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections")). After having considered the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants' contentions, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error, and we affirm the Examiner'sÂ§ 103 rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 3 because neither reference teaches or suggests "a signal manipulator ... 3 Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejection of claims 2- 7. See, e.g., Br. 4--9. These claims, therefore, stand or fall with claim 1. See id. at 9; see also 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 3 Appeal2018-004057 Application 12/500,433 comprising a controller configured to, upon the signal manipulator's receipt of the first, second, and third output signals from the splitter[,] independently manipulate a phase of each of the first and second output signals" as recited. Br. 4. The Examiner, on the other hand, finds that Stimson describes a signal manipulator in Figure 2. Ans. 10 (annotating Stimson Figure 2). The Examiner finds that the prior art "phase adjuster (61/62/63) and/or gain adjuster (41/42/43/44) and/or impedance matcher (51/52/53/54) are part of the signal manipulator." Id. The Examiner finds that the signal in Stimson Figure 2 is split into at least four signals. Id. The Examiner also finds that Stimson Figure 2 shows, subsequent to the signal being split into at least four signals, phase shifters 61 and 62 manipulate a phase of these signals. Id. These findings are undisputed and are reasonable, and we accordingly accept them as facts of the case. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3 (CCPA 1964). As to the recited controller, the Examiner finds that the limitation "merely defines when the controller operates and, therefore, does not impart any structure required by the controller to operate" (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 9}-a conclusion likewise unchallenged by Appellants. As a result, we are unpersuaded that reversible error has been identified in this aspect of the obviousness analysis. Appellants' argument that phase shifters 61 and 62 of Stimson do not teach or suggest the limitations at issue does not address the Examiner's fact findings detailed above. Compare Br. 8, with Ans. 9--10. Appellants' argument that "Stimson does not even manipulate the output of the power supply 41" (Br. 8.) does not patentably distinguish claim 1 which does not recite an output from a power supply. Appellants' argument with regard to Figure 3 of 4 Appeal2018-004057 Application 12/500,433 Stimson (id.) likewise does not identify reversible error as it again fails to address the Examiner's fact findings with regard to Figure 2 of Stimson. We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that a skilled artisan would not have combined the prior art teachings because "there is no need for further adjustment." Br. 9. Appellants do not address the Examiner's rationale that the skilled artisan would "utilize the phase shift regime disclosed in Stimson to achieve time-averaged spatial uniformity of the plasma fabrication process." Compare id., with Final Act. 6 ( citing Stimson 42). It is well-established that "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007). In this case, the Examiner's rationale is supported by evidence and is reasonable. See Final Act. 6. Based on the foregoing, Appellants' arguments regarding the teachings of Mitrovic (Br. 6-7) are moot because the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that the limitations at issue are taught or suggested by Stimson. 4 DECISION The Examiner's decision is affirmed. 4 We again note the Examiner's undisputed finding that there is no structural distinction between the prior art device and the recited. Compare Final Act. 6, 9, with Br. 6-7; see also Ans. 9. 5 Appeal2018-004057 Application 12/500,433 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6