Ex Parte HAIDER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 5, 2019

14467688 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/467,688 08/25/2014 23494 7590 03/07/2019 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Asad Mahmood HAIDER 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. TI-68283 6196 EXAMINER JOLLEY, KIRSTEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/07/2019 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASAD MAHMOOD HAIDER and JOHN BRITTON ROBBINS Appeal2018-003546 Application 14/467,688 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges. REN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-003546 Application 14/467,688 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a rejection2 of claims 1-7 and 9-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a process for forming lead zirconate titanate and lead lanthanum zirconate titanate films. Spec. ,r 3. 3 Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A process of forming an integrated circuit, comprising the steps: forming a thin film containing lead, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen by spin coating a solution containing the lead, zirconium, titanium, and oxygen onto a wafer using a spin- coating tool; removing an edge bead of the thin film by directing a jet of non-solvent onto an edge of the wafer through an edge bead removal nozzle in the spin-coating tool; collecting the non-solvent and edge bead material in a coater reservoir after directing the jet of non-solvent onto the edge of the wafer; and adding a first solvent to non-solvent and edge bead material collected in the coater reservoir to reduce the DI water volume percent to less than 45%. Claims Appendix (Br. 10). 1 The real party in interest is identified as "Texas Instruments Incorporated." Appeal Brief of August 25, 2017 ("Br."), 3. 2 Final Office Action of December 28, 2016 ("Final Act."). In this opinion, we also refer to the Examiner's Answer of December 18, 2017 ("Ans.") and the Reply Brief of February 19, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 3 Application No. 14/467,688 filed August 25, 2014 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2018-003546 Application 14/467,688 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Oota Soyama US 6,503,568 Bl Jan. 7, 2003 US 2012/0100330 Al Apr. 26, 2012 REJECTIONS Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Soyama in view of Oota. Final Act. 4. OPINION In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that Soyama does not teach or suggest a process including "adding a first solvent to non-solvent and edge bead material collected in the coater reservoir to reduce the DI water volume percent to less than 45%." Final Act. 5 (stating that Soyama "does not disclose the specifics of ... the addition of a first solvent to the mixture collected in the coater reservoir"). Citing Oota's teaching of a process for "recycling a resist" which includes "supplying a solvent to the viscosity control tank" (Oota Abstract) as well as its teaching that the thickness and viscosity of the resist are correlated (id. at 3:33-35), the Examiner finds that Oota would have led a skilled artisan to add a solvent "to the collected material to obtain the desired resin density." Final Act. 5 ( citing Oota Abstract, 3 :23-29). These prior art findings, however, do not sufficiently support the Examiner's conclusion that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious "to have added a solvent to the mixture of edge bead material and water collected in a reservoir in order to prevent the hydrolyzation and 3 Appeal2018-003546 Application 14/467,688 precipitation of the material solution thereby also preventing the pollution of the working environment, upon seeing the teachings of Soyama et al." Id. at 6. While Soyama undisputedly teaches that "if the ratio of the water" in the solution to remove the edge bead of a thin film "is smaller than 5:95, metal alkoxide in the material solution is prevented from being hydrolyzed and precipitate formation is prevented" (Soyama ,r 44), Soyama does not teach adding "a first solvent" as the Examiner acknowledges. Id. at 5. Oota adds solvent for a different reason, i.e., to control the viscosity in a resist recycling process (Oota Abstract, 3 :23-29). As pointed out by Appellant, Soyama is not concerned with controlling viscosity. Appeal Br. 5. The record before us lacks the articulated reasoning that the combined prior art teaching would have led the skilled artisan to "adding a first solvent to non- solvent and edge bead material collected in the coater reservoir" as recited. Nor, for the reasons pointed by Appellant, would the combination suggest to the ordinary artisan adding the solvent to reduce the DI water volume percent to less than 45% of the total mixture in the coater reservoir. Appeal Br. 5-6. We therefore cannot sustain the rejection. The claim language "to reduce the DI water volume percent to less than 45%" lacks antecedent basis and does not clearly state that the volume percent is relative to the volume of the total mixture of the first solvent, the non-solvent, and the edge bead material collected in the coater reservoir. Claims 10 and 11 recite similar language. The Specification indicates that the non-solvent is DI water or contains DI water. Spec. ,r,r 19, 21; see also ,r 14 ("The term solvent is used to describe a liquid that dissolves a lead zirconate titanate thinfilm (PZT) or a lead lanthanum zirconate titanate (PLZT) thinfilm which has been spin-coated on a wafer."), ,r 15 ("The term 4 Appeal2018-003546 Application 14/467,688 non-solvent is used to describe a liquid that does not dissolve a PZT or a PLZT thin film which has been spin-coated on a wafer."). Thus, we interpret claim 1 as requiring the non-solvent contain DI water. On return of the Application to the jurisdiction of the Examiner, Appellant and the Examiner should resolve these ambiguities including the antecedent basis problem and the implied- but not explicitly stated - volume percent that is based on the total mixture in the coater reservoir. During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow .... The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed .... An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). "[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite." Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). We accordingly reverse the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 11 as well as their respective dependent claims. DECISION The Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 5