Ex Parte Devine et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201511829258 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015) 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. 11/829,258 07/27/2007 Daniel J. Devine MAT-29 1815 21833 7590 03/31/2015 PRITZKAU PATENT GROUP, LLC 993 GAPTER ROAD BOULDER, CO 80303 EXAMINER FORD, NATHAN K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1716 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2015 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 DANIEL J. DEVINE, CHARLES CRAPUCHETTES, DIXIT DESAI, RENE GEORGE, VINCENT C. LEE, YUYA MATSUDA, JONATHAN MOHN, RYAN M. PAKULSKI, STEPHEN E. SAVAS, and MARTIN ZUCKER ______________ Appeal 2013-002604 Application 11/829,258 Technology Center 1700 _______________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and WESLEY B. DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Applicants appeal to the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the decision of the Primary Examiner finally rejecting claims 1–30 and 36–50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a):1 claims 1–10, 12, 14–20, 26–30, 36, and 46–50 over Devine (US 2005/0247265 A1), Hao (US 6,889,627 B1), and Nitescu (US 5,641,375), and claims 21–25 and 40–45 over Devine, Hao, Nitescu, and Li (US 2001/0000104 A1).2 App. Br. 16; FOA 2, 4. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the decision of the Primary Examiner. 1 Final Office Action mailed January 19, 2012. See Ans. 2, 3. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the ground of rejection of claims 11, 13, and 37–39 over Devine, Hao, Nitescu, and Hemker (US 2004/0011467 A1). Ans. 3; see FOA 4. Appeal 2013-002604 Application 11/829,258 2 Sole independent claim 1 and dependent claims 7 and 8, as illustrated by Specification Figure 2, illustrate Appellants’ invention of an apparatus for processing workpieces in a treatment process, comprising a multi-wafer chamber including at least two processing stations, each of which includes a workpiece pedestal, and an electrically conductive shield arrangement for each of the processing stations that, in treatment mode, surrounds the workpiece (Spec. ¶ 7), and are representative of the claims on appeal: 1. An apparatus for processing workpieces in a treatment process, said apparatus comprising: a multi-wafer chamber (12) defining a chamber interior (38) including at least two processing stations (40, 42) within the chamber interior such that the processing stations share the chamber interior, each of which processing stations includes a plasma source (60) and a workpiece pedestal (44, 48), and each of which processing stations is configured for exposing one of the workpieces (46, 50) to the treatment process using a respective plasma source, and the chamber isolates a treatment pressure in the chamber interior from an ambient pressure outside the chamber, said chamber including an arrangement of one or more electrically conductive surfaces that are asymmetrically disposed about the workpiece at each processing station in a way which produces a given level of uniformity of the treatment process on a major surface of each workpiece; and an electrically conductive shield arrangement (140), located in said chamber interior (38), for each of the processing stations (40, 42) with each electrically conductive shield arrangement selectively operable (i) in a first, workpiece transfer mode to provide for transferring each workpiece (46, 50) to and from the workpiece pedestal (44, 48) of one of the processing stations (40, 42) and (ii) in a second, treatment mode to surround each workpiece (46, 50), located on the workpiece pedestal (44, 48) of one of the processing stations (40, 42), such that the treatment mode provides an enhanced uniformity of exposure of the workpiece (46, 50) to the respective one of the plasma sources (60) that is greater than the given level of uniformity that would be provided in an absence of the shield arrangement (140). 7. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein said shield arrangement (140) includes a first annular shield member (142) surrounding the workpiece (46, 50) in a stationary position and a second shield member (180) that is Appeal 2013-002604 Application 11/829,258 3 supported for movement between a first position and a second position in which first position the second shield member (180) cooperates with the first shield member (142) for operation of the shield arrangement (140) in said wafer transfer mode, and in which second position, the second shield member (180) cooperates with the first shield member (142) for operation of the shield arrangement (140) in the treatment mode. 8. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein said first annular shield member (142) defines a slot (170) for moving the workpiece (46, 50) through the slot (170) in said wafer transfer mode to and from the workpiece pedestal (44, 48). App. Br. 34, 35 (VIII. Claims App’x) (Fig. 2 numerals supplied). Spec. ¶¶ 41, 42, 44–47, 51, 52. OPINION On this record, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in not establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of an apparatus for processing workpieces having at least two processing stations in the chamber and an electrically conductive shield arrangement in the interior of the chamber that provides for a workpiece transfer mode and a treatment mode, wherein in the treatment mode, the electrically conductive shield arrangement surrounds a workpiece on the pedestal of each processing station, as specified in claim 1 and as further delimited in claims 7 and 8, over the basic combination of Devine, Hao, and Nitescu. App. Br. 6–10; Reply Br. 4–6. With respect to sole independent claim 1, the Examiner initially contended that Devine’s processing system 100 comprises a shield which abuts the wafer transfer ports (152) during processing, i.e., treatment mode, and recedes during wafer transport, i.e., transfer mode, the explicit structure of this shield is not fully elaborated [0034]. Supplying the deficiency is Hao, who describes a first annular shield (102) having an aperture formed therein and a second shield (110) which occupies the aperture during treatment mode and retreats from Appeal 2013-002604 Application 11/829,258 4 the aperture during wafer conveyance (Figs. 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide Devine’s system with first and second shield members in order to achieve the predictable result of promoting wafer ingress, egress, and vacuum processing. FOA 2. In the Advisory Action,3 the Examiner similarly contended that Hao’s shield structure is equivalent to Devine’s shield as both are used in vacuum processing systems, and thus “the shape and dimension of Devine’s shield is to be modified to approximate the general configuration of Hao’s, i.e., a shield which conforms to the contours of the reaction chamber in which it is disposed.” Adv. Act. 2. However, in the Answer, the Examiner now contends that Hao is cited simply to depict the construction of a conventional shutter valve (although Devine, the primary reference, inherently implies the existence of a shutter valve, its structure is not delineated). The shape or intended use of any liner which may or may not be disposed within Hao’s system is simply not germane to the rejection, since Hao is relied upon exclusively for the teaching of the structure of a shutter. Ans. 3. In support of this position, the Examiner contends that the term ‘shield arrangement’ is especially broad, and can be reasonably interpreted to encompass any entity which executes some form of protection or blocking of an external atmosphere from an internal reaction space. A conventional gate valve for closing a wafer transfer slot satisfies this definition, and Devine, alone, obviously teaches at least this much [0034]. Ans. 4. We initially note that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim 1 term “shield arrangement” alone constitutes reversible error as it is based solely on consideration of the bare term and not on the interpretation of the term in the context of the claim language taken in light of the Specification 3 Advisory Action mailed April 11, 2012 (Adv. Act.). See Ans. 3. Appeal 2013-002604 Application 11/829,258 5 as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321–22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). We determine that the claim term “electrically conductive shield arrangement” is defined in the context of the language of claim 1 with respect to location and structure relative to a workpiece on the pedestal of each processing station, in addition to function, even though not delimited to the extent of claims 7 and 8. Thus, the subject claim term in the context of claim 1 taken in light of the Specification does not read on a conventional gate valve for closing a wafer transfer slot as the Examiner contends. We are of the opinion that, as Appellants point out, the Examiner further erred in finding that Devine would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art in paragraph 34 a shield in the interior of the processing chamber which occupies the aperture during treatment. We find Devine would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art in paragraph 34: Referring now to Fig. 4, further details of system 100 will now be described with regard to this perspective view. For purposes of clarity, chamber lid 106 (FIG. 3) and associates [plasma] sources 132, which are supported by the chamber lid have not been shown. A front lengthwise sidewall 150a of chamber bowl 104 defines a pair of slit opening 152 through which wafers can be inserted and removed from the chamber for each one of the wafer susceptors. An O-ring 154 surrounds both of these slit openings for use in sealing against other components (not shown) such as, for example, a wafer transfer chamber, a description of which is beyond the scope of [sic] present application. . . . We find Devine’s Figures 3 and 4 would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art processing chamber arrangement 102 having chamber 104 in Appeal 2013-002604 Application 11/829,258 6 which is disposed first and second processing stations 120, 122, each of which has a susceptor, that is, workpiece pedestal, 136 which supports a workpiece 130, and partition arrangement 160, having partition plate 162, extending between processing stations 120, 122 in a manner that bisects processing chamber 104. Devine ¶¶ 31–33, 35. We find Devine’s Figure 4 would have further disclosed that O-ring 154 surrounds both of slit openings 152 on the outside of processing chamber 104, and Devine teaches that O-ring 154 so positioned is used to seal slit openings 152 with “other components” external to processing chamber 104 which are “not shown” or otherwise identified. Devine ¶ 34. We find that, as Appellants point out, Devine would not have disclosed or suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art any manner of shield positioned inside processing chamber 104, other than partition arrangement 160 which is not positioned in the chamber to abut slit openings 152 during processing and recede from slit openings 152 to permit wafer transfer. We find that Hao as relied on by the Examiner would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art in Figures 3A–B, symmetrical reactor 100 having symmetrical liner 102 therein which has an aperture for the passage of a wafer, and liner aperture plate 110 which occupies the liner aperture to permit the formation of a vacuum seal. Hao col.4 l.24–col.5 l.21, col.5 l.49–col.6 l.3. Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not supported either the position that Devine would have suggested a shield in the processing chamber which seals slit openings 152 but not the structure thereof to one of ordinary skill in the art, which structure is supplied by Hao, or the position that Devine inherently discloses a shield in the processing chamber that merely lacks a shutter valve, which shutter valve is supplied by Hao. See In Appeal 2013-002604 Application 11/829,258 7 re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) (“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art”). Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness, we reverse the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal. The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED kmm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation