Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

13485186 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/485, 186 05/31/2012
29393 7590 05/04/2016
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.
EATNP314US 4315
EXAMINER
MCCORMACK, JASON L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2016 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 and STEVE DRUMMOND
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485, 186
Technology Center 2800
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Axcelis Technologies,
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' present application relates to an ion implantation system
with a process chamber, a load lock chamber, and an intermediate chamber.
Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and reads as
follows:
1. An ion implantation system, comprising:
a process chamber having a process environment
associated therewith;
an ion implantation apparatus configured to provide a
plurality of ions to a workpiece positioned in the process
chamber;
a sub-ambient temperature chuck configured to support
the workpiece within the process chamber during an exposure of
the workpiece to the plurality of ions, wherein the sub-ambient
temperature chuck is further configured to cool the workpiece to
a processing temperature;
an intermediate chamber having an intermediate
environment associated therewith, wherein the intermediate
chamber is in fluid communication with an external
environment, and wherein the intermediate chamber comprises a
cooling station configured to cool the workpiece to a first
temperature and a heating station configured to heat the
workpiece to a second temperature;
a load lock chamber operably coupled to the process
chamber and the intermediate chamber, wherein the load lock
chamber is configured to isolate the process environment from
the intermediate environment, and wherein the load lock
chamber comprises a workpiece support configured to support
the workpiece during a transfer of the workpiece between the
process chamber and the intermediate chamber; and
a positive pressure source configured to provide a dry gas
to the intermediate chamber, wherein the dry gas has a dew point
2
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
that is less than a dew point of the external environment, and
wherein the positive pressure source generally isolates the
intermediate environment from the external environment via a
flow of the dry gas from the intermediate chamber to the external
environment.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 7-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2011/0291022 Al; Dec. 1, 2011) ("Lee")
and Chang et al. (US 2010/0181500 Al; July 22, 2010) ("Chang"). See Ans.
3-9.
Claims 2, 3, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Chang, and Lee (US 2011/0291030 Al; Dec. 1,
2011) ("Lee '030"). See Ans. 9-10.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Lee, Chang, and Edo et al. (US 2005/0121144 Al; June 9, 2005) ("Edo").
See Ans. 11.
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee, Chang, Edo, and England et al. (US 2008/004493 8
Al; Feb. 21, 2008) ("England"). See Ans. 11-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the
3
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Load lock chamber
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Lee and Chang teaches or suggests "a load lock chamber operably coupled
to the process chamber and the intermediate chamber, wherein the load lock
chamber is configured to isolate the process environment from the
intermediate environment," as required in claim 1. In particular, Appellants
argue Chang's transfer chamber 502 does not correspond to the "load lock
chamber" limitation because the transfer chamber does not isolate the
process environment from the intermediate environment. See App. Br. 5-6.
Appellants argue Chang is silent regarding any environmental isolation
provided by Chang's transfer chamber, instead disclosing the transfer
chamber sustains the environment of the process chamber. See id.
Appellants argue the transfer chamber maintaining the wafers in the sealed
vacuum environment of the process chamber indicates that only Chang's
load locks provide environmental isolation. Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Lee and Chang teaches the claimed "load lock chamber."
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Chang's transfer chamber and
process chamber are separate chambers with independent functionality.
Ans. 13. The transfer chamber maintains the wafers in a sealed vacuum
environment. Id. (citing Chang i-f 6). The process chamber maintains a low
temperature during ion implantation. Id. (citing Chang i-f 30). Lee also
teaches a process chamber, which is explicitly isolated from the adjoining
4
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
chamber. Ans. 14 (citing Lee Abstract). Although Chang is silent as to
whether the process chamber is isolated from the transfer chamber, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized that Chang's process chamber could be advantageously isolated
from the transfer chamber and this could be accomplished using a variety of
methods, including the sealed doorways taught by Lee. Id.
Intermediate chamber
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding the cited
combination teaches or suggests an "intermediate chamber" coupled to the
load lock chamber, as claimed. See App. Br. 6-7. In particular, Appellants
argue the Examiner's reliance on Lee's load lock chamber as the claimed
"intermediate chamber" is misplaced because Lee's load lock chamber is
directly coupled to the process chamber. See id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lee teaches a load lock
chamber 116 (the claimed "intermediate chamber") and process chamber
114.2 Final Act. 4-5 (citing Lee Fig. 1). Appellants' argument that Lee's
load lock chamber is directly coupled to the process chamber and therefore
cannot satisfy the "intermediate chamber" limitation is unpersuasive because
Appellants focus on the disclosure of Lee while ignoring the disclosure of
Chang. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re
2 The Examiner refers to the process chamber as both process chamber 114
and 106. See, e.g., Final Act. 4-5. Numeral 114 refers to the end station,
which is comprised of the process chamber 106. Lee i-f 17.
5
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner explained that the
combination of Lee and Chang, not Lee alone, discloses this limitation.
Final Act. 4-5. In particular, the Examiner proposes adding Chang's
transfer chamber between Lee's load lock chamber 116 and process chamber
114. Final Act. 4-5. Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred
in finding Chang's transfer chamber corresponds to the claimed "load lock
chamber" while Lee's load lock chamber corresponds to the claimed
"intermediate chamber" in the proposed combination.
Appellants also argue the Examiner has not articulated sufficient
reasoning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated
to add Chang's transfer chamber between Lee's process and load lock
chambers. See App. Br. 7. Appellants argue an ordinarily skilled artisan
would not combine the references as proposed because it would create
additional cost, complexity, and production time. Id. Appellants have not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to combine Lee and Chang as proposed. The
Examiner articulated sufficient reasoning, finding an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have found it obvious to separate Lee's load lock chamber and
process chamber using Chang's transfer chamber "to provide further
atmospheric isolation of a workpiece, thereby reducing the negative effects
of ambient [gases] during ion implantation[,] providing [an] optimal[] and
clean environment for performing the implantation." Final Act. 5.
Appellants' argument that such a combination would have increased the cost
is not persuasive because a proposed combination does not need to be the
most cost efficient, or most generally advantageous, option available to the
skilled artisan. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
6
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
("[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that
an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.") (citations
omitted). Further, Appellants have not identified persuasive evidence in the
record before us that the Examiner's combination would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art."
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007).
Positive pressure source
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding the cited
combination teaches or suggests a "positive pressure source [that] generally
isolates the intermediate environment from the external environment via a
flow of the dry gas from the intermediate chamber to the external
environment." See App. Br. 7-9. In particular, Appellants argue Lee
teaches "a transfer of workpieces 104 into and out of the process
environment without compromising the vacuum or pressure quality within
the process environment." App. Br. 8 (citing Lee i-f 18). Appellants argue
Lee teaches venting the load lock chamber to maintain the vacuum and
pressure quality, but does not teach isolation via the flow of a dry gas to the
intermediate chamber or a positive pressure differential. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lee teaches a gas or vacuum
source in fluid communication with the load lock chamber (the claimed
"intermediate chamber") wherein the gas or vacuum source provides a dry
gas or vacuum to the chamber. Ans. 15 (citing Lee i-f 27). The vacuum
source would cause the dry gas to flow from within the chamber to the
external environment. Id. When the load lock chamber is filled with dry gas
7
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
and "subsequently vented" (Lee il 4), the chamber is isolated from the
external environment via a flow of dry gas to the external environment.
Accordingly, while Appellants are correct that Lee teaches a transfer of
workpieces into and out of the process chamber without compromising the
process environment, Lee also teaches subsequently venting the intermediate
chamber to isolate the intermediate chamber as claimed.
Cooling and heating stations
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding the cited
combination teaches or suggests "the intermediate chamber comprises a
cooling station configured to cool the workpiece to a first temperature and a
heating station configured to heat the workpiece to a second temperature."
See App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue the cited combination does
not teach or suggest the intermediate chamber has both a cooling and a
heating station. Id. Appellants also argue that the Examiner's proposed
combination is flawed because cooling the workpiece in Lee's load lock
chamber would frustrate the intended purpose of Lee, which is to heat the
workpiece in the load lock chamber to prevent condensation during the
transition from processing at cold temperatures to warmer ambient
temperatures. Reply Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds that Lee teaches the load lock chamber (the
claimed "intermediate chamber") includes a light source to selectively heat
the workpiece (the claimed "heating station"). Ans. 16 (citing Lee i-f 22).
Lee also teaches that it is important to maintain the proper workpiece
temperature, and maintaining such temperature may require cooling the
workpiece. Id. (citing Lee Abstract, i-f 25). The Examiner finds an
8
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Chang's
teaching of feeding cooling gas to a chamber to cool the workpiece (Chang
Fig. 7) to Lee's load lock chamber to optimize the temperature of the
workpiece, which would satisfy the "cooling station" limitation. Id.
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. Appellants'
argument regarding the intended purpose of Lee is not persuasive because
the purported benefit of preventing condensation is not recited in the claim
and a combination does not defeat the intended purpose of a reference
merely because it substitutes one benefit for another. See In re Urbanski,
809 F.3d 1237, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we adopt the
Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of Lee and Chang and the
motivation to combine Chang's cooling gas with Lee's load lock chamber.
See Ans. 16, Final Act. 4-5.
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us and in view of the analysis above, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Chang. We also sustain the rejection
of claims 2-20, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 9-10.
9
Appeal2014-007997
Application 13/485,186
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10