Ex Parte Colvin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 201712948369 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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) (Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation