Ex Parte Colvin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

12948369 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 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.
12/948,369 11/17/2010 Neil K. Colvin EATNP300US 3733
29393 7590 01/30/2017
ESCHWEILER & ASSOCIATES, LLC
NATIONAL CITY BANK BUILDING
629 EUCLID AVE., SUITE 1000
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
EXAMINER
OSENBAUGH-STEWAR, ELIZA W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2017 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):
Docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NEIL K. COLVIN and TSEH-JEN HSIEH
Appeal 2015-005762
Application 12/948,369
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, MONTE T. SQUIRE, and LILAN REN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SQUIRE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 appeal the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—12 and 14—
19. 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action appealed from, mailed
May 5, 2014 (“Final Act.”); the Advisory Action, dated July 18, 2014
(“Adv. Act.”); the Appeal Brief, dated December 8, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer to the Appeal Brief, dated March 13, 2015 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), dated May 13, 2015.
2 Appellants identify Axcelis Technologies, Inc. as the Real Party in Interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-005762
Application 12/948,369
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ disclosure relates to semiconductor device fabrication and
ion implantation, and more particularly to a system for improving
performance and extending the lifetime of an ion source in an ion implanter.
Spec. 1; Abstract. Claim 6 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.
9, 10) (key disputed limitations italicized):
6. An ion implantation system for improving beam current
comprising:
an ion source assembly comprising a carbon-containing
source gas and associated gas flow controller, a hydrogen co-gas
and associated gas flow controller, and an ion source chamber
configured to form an ion beam, and wherein hydrogen ions from
the hydrogen co-gas react with oxygen atoms from the source
gas in the ion source chamber, therein producing water
molecules and hydroxide within the ion source chamber,
a beam line assembly that receives the ion beam from the
ion source chamber and processes the ion beam;
a target location that receives the ion beam from the beam
line assembly; and
a vacuum pump system to remove the water molecules and
hydroxide from the ion source chamber, wherein chamber
poisoning is reduced and ion source lifetime is increased.
2
Appeal 2015-005762
Application 12/948,369
The References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references3 as evidence
in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Chaney et al., US 7,446,326 B2 Nov. 4,2008
(hereinafter “Chaney”)
Perel et al, US 7,586,109 B2 Sept. 8,2009
(hereinafter “Perel”)
Jones etal., US 2012/0252195 Al Oct. 4, 2012
(hereinafter “Jones”)
The Rejections
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 2—9 and 14—19 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chaney in view of Jones.
Ans. 2; Final Act. 2.
2. Claims 10-12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chaney and Jones, and further in view of Perel.
Ans. 2; Final Act. 8.
OPINION
Having considered the respective positions advanced by the Examiner
and Appellants in light of this appeal record, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections for the reasons set forth in the Answer to the Appeal Brief and
Final Office Action appealed from, which we adopt as our own. We
3 In the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2), the Examiner also cites the following
“Rosenthal et al.” article as an evidentiary reference: Joel Rosenthal et al.,
Why does combining hydrogen and oxygen typically produce water rather
than hydrogen peroxide? Scientific American (Oct. 30, 2006) (