Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2016

13116580 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/116,580 05/26/2011
29393 7590 04/08/2016
ESCHWEILER & AS SOCIA TES, LLC
NATIONAL CITY BANK BUILDING
629 EUCLID A VE., SUITE 1000
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William D. Lee
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.
EATNP290USA 5774
EXAMINER
MCCORMACK, JASON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2016 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 WILLIAM D. LEE
Appeal2014-005022
Application 13/116,580
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a
decision of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1-10 of Application
13/116,580. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as AXCELIS Technologies,
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005022
Application 13/116,580
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to preventing condensation from
forming on a workpiece in an ion implantation system, such as in
semiconductor processing. Spec. 1.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief as follows (emphasis added):
1. A system for preventing condensation on a workpiece,
the system comprising:
an source configured to form an ion beam;
a beamline assembly configured to mass analyze the ion beam;
an end station having a first environment associated therewith,
wherein the end station comprises a chilled electrostatic chuck
configured to clamp and cool the workpiece during an
implantation of ions from the ion beam;
a load lock chamber operably coupled to the end station and in
selective fluid communication with the first environment and a
second environment, wherein the load lock chamber comprises
a platen configured to accept the workpiece, wherein the platen
comprises a workpiece temperature monitoring device
configured to measure a temperature of the workpiece, and
wherein the second environment has a higher dew point than
the first environment;
an external monitoring device, wherein the external monitoring
device is configured to measure a temperature and relative
humidity in the second environment; and
a controller configured to determine a temperature of the
workpiece at which condensation will not form on the
workpiece when the workpiece is transferred from the load lock
chamber to the second environment, wherein the determination
is made based on data from the workpiece temperature
monitoring device and external temperature monitoring device.
2
Appeal2014-005022
Application 13/116,580
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Dupeyrat et al. us 4,626,649 Dec. 2, 1986
(hereinafter "Dupeyrat")
England et al. US 2008/0044938 Al Feb.21,2008
(hereinafter "England")
Henley US 2008/0188011 Al Aug. 7, 2008
(hereinafter "Henley")
Binns et al. US 2008/0218772 Al Sept. 11, 2008
(hereinafter "Binns")
Hatem et al. US 2009/0200494 Al Aug. 13, 2009
(hereinafter "Hatem")
Shieh et al. US 2010/0301236 Al Dec. 2, 2010
(hereinafter "Shieh")
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over England and Hatem.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over England, Hatem, and Binns.
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over England, Hatem, and Dupeyrat.
4. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over England, Hatem, and Henley.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie
case of unpatentability because England teaches away from implementation
of a chilled electrostatic chuck, the limitation italicized supra in claim 1.
3
Appeal2014-005022
Application 13/116,580
App. Br. 4--5. Appellant argues for reversal of all rejections on the basis of
that limitation, and does not present substantively distinct arguments for
dependent claims 2-10. Therefore, we limit our analysis to the sole
limitation of claim 1 argued by Appellant; dependent claims 2-10 stand or
fall with claim 1.
England discloses a system for low-temperature ion implantation
having a process chamber wherein a wafer holder 116, or platen, facilitates
tilting and rotation of a wafer. England i-f 47. "An electrostatic clamp (ESC
or E-chuck) may be used to keep the wafer in place" on the wafer holder
116. Id. "During low-temperature ion implantation, it may not be necessary
for a wafer to be actively or continuously cooled by the wafer holder 116."
Id. England further discloses that the wafer does not have "to be actively or
continuously cooled," and it may be thermally insulated from a "wafer
platen." Id. The Examiner finds that England discloses all of the limitations
of claim 1, except that it does not explicitly disclose a chilled electrostatic
chuck or a beamline assembly. Ans. 4. The Examiner looks to Hatem for
disclosure of a beamline assembly and a chuck which is capable of cooling a
workpiece in a low temperature ion implantation system, and concludes that
a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined England and
Hatem in order to ensure that a wafer is properly cooled for ion
implantation.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner's findings as to Hatem. See
App. Br. 4--6. The only argument Appellant presents against the rejection is
that England discourages providing a chilled electrostatic chuck and
provides numerous reasons not to implement such a chuck. Id.; Reply Br.
1--4. Appellant relies on England's Background of the Disclosure (England
i-f 10), which describes that "modification of a wafer platen for low-
4
Appeal2014-005022
Application 13/116,580
temperature ion implantation" may be undesirable, and "in-situ cooling often
significantly slows down the overall ion implantation process and therefore
reduced production throughput." App. Br. 5. Appellant also relies on
England's disclosure of several embodiments wherein the wafer is thermally
insulated from the platen or chuck. Id. at 4-5, citing England iii! 16, 47, 51,
54, and 69.
We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not find them
persuasive. England's if 10 does not contain statements that would have
discouraged a person of ordinary skill from modifying its ion implantation
system to include a chilled chuck as disclosed in Hatem. Further, England's
disclosures of a platen that is thermally insulated from the wafer are merely
preferred embodiments. Indeed, England's disclosure that "it may not be
necessary for a wafer to be actively or continuously cooled by the wafer
holder" recognizes that cooling may be necessary, and that cooling the wafer
holder is a known method of cooling the wafer. Id. if 4 7, see also if 43.
Accordingly, we discern no reversible error in the rejection of claim 1.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5