Ex Parte Boitnott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2014

11669763 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

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.
11/669,763 01/31/2007 CHRISTOPHER BOITNOTT AM-11605 5940
60300 7590 07/29/2014
LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES GUENZER
ATTN: APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
2211 PARK BOULEVARD
P.O. BOX 60729
PALO ALTO, CA 94306
EXAMINER
BRAYTON, JOHN JOSEPH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1756
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2014 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 CHRISTOPHER BOITNOTT and KEITH A. MILLER
____________

Appeal 2012-009126
Application 11/669,7631
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and
GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

DELMENDO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 18, 20, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Applied Materials,
Inc. (Appeal Brief filed March 13, 2012, hereinafter “App. Br.,” 1).
2 Claims 4-10, 22, and 23 were also rejected in the Final Office Action
entered October 7, 2011. Post-final, however, claims 4-10 and 22 were
indicated as allowable (Notice of Panel Decision from Pre-Appeal Brief
Review entered February 13, 2012), and claim 23 was canceled by
amendment (Reply filed November 14, 2011).
Appeal 2012-009126
Application 11/669,763
2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to a plasma processing chamber
in which a non-axisymmetric electromagnetic coil is placed in a particular
orientation and position to address a problem with non-uniformity of etch
rate in an azimuthal or circumferential direction (Specification, hereinafter
“Spec.,” 1, ll. 7-8, and 3, ll. 25-29). The Appellants’ claimed chamber is
exemplified in Figure 3 of the subject application as follows:

Figure 3 above depicts a schematic diagram illustrating inner and outer
magnetic coils 30 and 32, respectively, in combination with inductive (RF)
coil 10, wherein: the inner magnetic coil 30 is symmetric about the
chamber’s central axis 12 and the outer magnetic coil 32 is symmetric about
offset axis 34 offset from the central axis 12 by a distance s; and the offset
axis is aligned along a direction from junction 14 to central axis 12 (Spec. 5,
ll. 14-15; 2, ll. 20-22; 6, l. 26 – 7, l. 12).
Appeal 2012-009126
Application 11/669,763
3
Representative claim 1, the only independent claim on appeal, is
reproduced as follows:
1. A plasma processing chamber, comprising:
a vacuum chamber arranged about a central axis;
a pedestal for supporting a substrate in a first plane
perpendicular to the central axis adjacent a processing space in
the vacuum chamber;
a non-axisymmetric electromagnet coil symmetrically
wound about an offset axis offset from the central axis by a
predetermined and fixed offset and extending about the offset
axis along a second plane around the processing space;
a DC power supply providing continuous DC power to
the non-axisymmetric electromagnet coil; and
a single-turn RF inductive coil wound about the central
axis and having a pair of junctions for connection to an RF
power supply and to ground, wherein the predetermined and
fixed offset is aligned along a direction from the junction to the
central axis.
(App. Br. 9, Claims App’x) (italics added to show disputed claim
limitations.)3
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
I. Claims 1, 3, and 18 as unpatentable over Nakanishi,4
Ding,5 and the Appellants’ admitted prior art (hereinafter
“AAPA”);6

3 Claim 1 recites, in part, “a pair of junctions for connection to an RF power
supply and to ground.” It appears, however, that the Appellants intended to
specify a junction (as shown in Figures 1 and 3, element 14, of the subject
application) rather than “a pair of junctions” as recited in claim 1. To avoid
any potential indefiniteness arising from the limitations “a pair of junctions”
and “aligned along a direction from the junction” (emphasis added) in claim
1, the Appellants and the Examiner should take such corrective action(s) as
may be appropriate.
Appeal 2012-009126
Application 11/669,763
4
II. Claim 20 as unpatentable over Nakanishi, Ding, AAPA,
and Gung;7 and
III. Claim 21 as unpatentable over Nakanishi, Ding, AAPA,
and Gaskill.8
(Examiner’s Answer entered April 18, 2012, hereinafter “Ans.,” 5-15.)
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Nakanishi describes a plasma processing
chamber comprising, inter alia, an electromagnet coil symmetrically wound
about an axis that is offset from the central axis of the chamber (Ans. 5).
The Examiner acknowledged, however, that “Nakanishi does not explicitly
teach a single-turn RF inductive coil wound about the central axis, or its
corresponding junction and power supply” (id. at 6). Thus, the Examiner
appears to concede that Nakanishi does not describe the “offset [that] is
aligned along a direction from [a] junction [of a single-turn RF coil] to the
central axis,” as required by claim 1. To resolve this difference, the
Examiner relied on Ding. Specifically, the Examiner found that Ding
teaches a “magnet (94) [that] is offset from the coil and aligned with the
junction for the connection to the RF power supply (70) and along a
direction from a junction to the central axis (34)” (Ans. 6, citing Ding’s Fig.
2 and ¶ 28). The Examiner further found that AAPA discloses a junction in

4 United States Patent 4,894,510 issued January 16, 1990.
5 United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0030151 A1 published
February 9, 2006.
6 Figure 1 (labeled as “PRIOR ART”) and Spec. 2, ll. 18-28.
7 United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0199491 A1 published
September 15, 2005.
8 United States Patent 4,211,992 issued July 8, 1980.
Appeal 2012-009126
Application 11/669,763
5
the RF inductive coil for connection to ground (id.). Based on these
findings, the Examiner concluded that the subject matter of claim 1 would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (id. at 7).
The Appellants contend, inter alia, that the Examiner’s findings
regarding Ding are erroneous and “[t]he prior art [combination] fails to teach
aligning the offset of the non-axisymmetric electromagnet with the junction
of the RF coil, as required by claim 1” (App. Br. 4). Therefore, according to
the Appellants, “no prima facie case of obviousness has been established for
claim 1” (id. at 4-5).
Thus, a dispositive issue arising from these contentions is whether the
Examiner’s findings regarding Ding’s teachings constitute reversible errors.
For the reasons given below, we agree with the Appellants that the
Examiner’s rejection is not well-founded.
Neither Figure 2 nor paragraph 28 of Ding discloses or suggests an
electromagnet coil symmetrically wound about an offset axis, which is
aligned along a direction from a junction of the RF coil to a central axis of
the chamber, as required by claim 1. Specifically, Ding’s Figure 2 is
reproduced below:
Appeal 2012-009126
Application 11/669,763
6

Ding’s Figure 2 above depicts a schematic cross-sectional view of a sputter
reactor 30 comprising, inter alia, inductive coil 68 wrapped around central
axis 34, RF power supply 70 applying RF current to inductive coil 68, and a
ring magnet 94 (¶¶ 28-29). Ding, however, provides no indication that ring
magnet 94 is at an offset axis that is aligned along a direction from a
junction of the inductive coil 68 to the central axis. To the contrary, Ding
teaches “[t]he ring magnet 94 may be implemented as a circular array of
vertically polarized permanent magnets or as one or more electromagnetic
Appeal 2012-009126
Application 11/669,763
7
coils coaxial with the central axis 34 . . .” (¶ 29; emphasis added).
Therefore, we find no factual basis for the Examiner’s findings regarding
Ding’s teachings.
The Examiner did not rely on Gung or Gaskill for the limitations of
claim 1 at issue (Ans. 8, 9). Therefore, we need not discuss their teachings.
Because the Examiner failed to account for the disputed claim limitations in
the obviousness analysis for claim 1, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection.
ORDER
Rejections I through III are reversed.

REVERSED

cdc