Ex Parte Devine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2015

11829258 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2015)

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2 The Examiner has withdrawn the ground of rejection of claims 11, 13, and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