Ex Parte LindforsDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 201712154879 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017) 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. 12/154,879 05/27/2008 Sven Lindfors ESP.3122.USU1 1548 30330US-lf 93582 7590 03/21/2017 ZIEGLER IP LAW GROUP, LLC. 55 Greens Farms Road WESTPORT, CT 06880 EXAMINER BRATLAND JR, KENNETH A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1714 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2017 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): ptomail @ gziplaw .com paralegal_ziplaw @ arcticinvent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SVEN LINDFORS Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,8791 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, DONNA M. PRAISS, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claim l.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The subject matter of this appeal relates to “methods for deposition reactors” and, more particularly, “deposition reactors in which material is 1 Appellant identifies Picosun OY as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 This decision makes reference to the Specification filed May 27, 2008 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Dec. 1, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed July 6, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 16, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 16, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Claim 1 was amended to include the subject matter of claim 20 and the remaining claims cancelled subsequent to the final rejection. Advisory Action mailed July 14, 2015, 2. Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 deposited on surfaces by sequential self-saturating surface reaction.” Spec. 1:6—9. Claim 1 is copied below from the Claims Appendix (App. Br. 11): 1. A method comprising: loading a movable and separate substrate holder carrying a batch of vertically placed substrates into a reaction chamber of an atomic layer deposition reactor from a top side of the reaction chamber by: attaching said substrate holder with a top attachment to a combined lid system that comprises the reaction chamber lid and, integrated thereto, a lid to a surrounding vacuum chamber; and lowering said lid system together with the substrate holder attached to the lid system into a lower position where said lid to the vacuum chamber seals the vacuum chamber and the reaction chamber lid seals the reaction chamber; guiding precursor vapor along at least one in-feed line via a reaction chamber lid into the reaction chamber from the top of the reaction chamber, the method further comprising: forming a reaction space within the reaction chamber, the reaction space having a rectangular cross-section; and depositing material on surfaces of the batch of vertically placed substrates within the reaction space formed in the reaction chamber based on atomic layer deposition by establishing a vertical top to bottom flow of precursor vapor in the reaction chamber and having the precursor vapor enter in a vertical top to bottom direction in between said vertically placed substrates so that the precursor vapor flows from an upper side of the reaction space along each of said surfaces to an exhaust guide at a bottom side of the reaction space essentially in said top to bottom direction. 2 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lindfors4 in view of Shiotani.5 Ans. 2; App. Br. 6. ANALYSIS The dispositive issues for this appeal are: (1) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Lindfors discloses a substrate holder that is movable and separate from the vacuum chamber lid; (2) whether the Examiner erred in finding that modifying Lindfors with the vertically aligned substrates of Shiotani would not change the principle of operation; and (3) whether the Examiner erred in finding that Shiotani discloses a reaction space having a rectangular cross-section. Ans. 3—6; App. Br. 6—9. After review of the arguments and evidence presented by both Appellant and the Examiner, we affirm the stated rejection. It is the Examiner’s position that Lindfors in combination with Shiotani suggests the subject matter of claim 1 for the reasons stated on pages 2—5 and 10-11 of the Final Action and pages 2—6 of the Answer. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Lindfors discloses a substrate holder that is moveable and separate because Lindfors’ “substrate holder is integrated with the movable dual lid and fastened to the reaction chamber lid at three or more points.” App. Br. 6. Appellant further argues that the cited references do not disclose “loading the movable and separate substrate holder into the reaction 4 Lindfors et al., US 2006/0196418 A1 (pub. Sept. 7, 2006) (“Lindfors”). 5 Shiotani et al., JP 61-251118 (pub. Nov. 8, 1986) (“Shiotani”). Citations herein are to the Patent Abstracts of Japan for Shiotani as well as Figures 1 and 2 of Shiotani. 3 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 chamber from a top side by attaching the substrate holder to the combined lid system using a top attachment.” Id. Appellant contends that Shiotani is silent as to this step and that “the substrate holders in Lindfors are moved up and down within a load lock 1202 while a wand loads and unloads substrates horizontally from the substrate holders.” Id. According to Appellant, the combination of Lindfors’ substrate holder and Shiotani’s vertically placed substrates is not a mere rearrangement of parts because it would change the operation of Lindfors. Id. at 7—8. Appellant contends that “[i]n order to achieve a vertical top to bottom flow [of gas], the tubes [in Lindfors’ apparatus] would have to be repositioned and other measures would have to be taken to change the operation of Lindfors.” Id. at 8. In addition, Appellant argues that “[t]uming Lindfors’ substrate holders sideways in order to orient the substrates vertically would cause an uneven distribution of the precursor and purge gasses due to the orientation of the apertures 416 and also due to gravity effects.” Id. at 9. Appellant further argues that the claimed rectangular cross section is not a matter of design choice, but an “advantageous feature that distinguishes over the prior art” because “the usage of expensive source chemicals can be minimized.” Id. (citing Spec. 1 51).6 The Examiner responds that claim 1 is directed to a method, therefore, structure limitations contained therein cannot amount to the mere claiming 6 Because the Specification does not contain numbered paragraphs, we understand Appellant’s citation to be a reference to the portion of page 9 of the Specification referring to the embodiments of Figures 2 and 3. This portion of the Specification states “the size of the substrate holder 160 carrying the substrates 170 .. . substantially fills the bottom part of the reaction chamber. In this way, the consumption efficiency of precursors can be improved.” Spec. 9:23—26. 4 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 of a use of a particular apparatus. Ans. 2. The Examiner further responds that a substrate holder that is movable and separate from the lid system would be desirable to provide “improved access to the substrate holder as well as the substrates contained thereon.” Id. at 3. The Examiner also responds that Lindfors discloses “the entire substrate holder assembly located beneath the reaction chamber lid (304) is movable and separate because it can be removed from the vacuum chamber lid (302) by unscrewing the bolts.” Id. In addition, the Examiner finds that the substrate holders of Lindfors are “necessarily attached to the reaction chamber lid (304) which, in turn, is attached to the vacuum chamber lid (302)” in the process of manufacturing and assembling the system. Id. The Examiner also finds that Figures la and lb of Shiotani show a substrate holder (16) that is separate from and not permanently affixed to the table (17) and lid of the system. Id. at 4. Regarding Appellant’s argument that the combination would change the principle of operation, the Examiner responds that “deposition will occur on the substrates utilized in the system and method of Lindfors regardless of whether the substrates are oriented vertically or horizontally. Thus, the principle of operation remains the same.” Id. The Examiner also finds that it would have been evident from the abstract and Figures la and lb of Shiotani that a vertical configuration of the individual substrate holders: (1) would have “ventilation holes (17a) in the table (17) [to] permit gas to flow entirely in a vertical direction within the reactor[,]”; (2) “would provide a simpler design which eliminates the complex gas tubing routes required in the horizontal batch substrate holder in Fig. 4 of Lindfors[,]”; and (3) would improve uniformity. Id. at 5. 5 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 Regarding the cross-section of the reaction space, the Examiner responds that Figure lb of Shiotani shows “a vertical arrangement of substrates exhibits a rectangular cross-section.” Id. at 6. The Examiner further responds that a skilled artisan would “readily recognize that the total volume of the reactor may be minimized by utilizing one having a square cross-section which matches that of the substrate holder itself’ because it would reduce the total volume of gas used, pump-down times, and the overall footprint of the system. Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that the loading method of Lindfors is different from the claimed loading method because “Lindfors’ substrate holders [have already been] fixed to the lid system before any loading of substrates” (Reply Br. 4) and therefore does not “disclose or suggest the advantageous ‘loading by attaching’ features of Appellant’s claims” {id. at 5). Appellant also asserts that Lindfors’ reactor of Figs. 12 and 13 does not use the lid-system of Fig. 4, but rather a single-lid system lacking a vacuum chamber lid part 302. Id. at 6. Appellant further contends that the substrate holders of Lindfors would not be replaced simply with the substrate holders of Shiotani; instead, the table arrangement 17 of Shiotani would be required to be made separate and “the substrate holders would no longer be attached to the lid system by a top attachment as claimed.” Id. According to Appellant, “Shiotani does not relate at all to atomic layer deposition (ALD), but to a chemical layer deposition (CVD) reaction chamber” and changing the substrates of Lindfors to a vertical orientation “would require a fundamental change of reactor operation into a cross flow reactor.” Id. at 7. 6 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 Regarding the recited “reaction space having a rectangular cross- section”, Appellant implies that Shiotani does not disclose the claimed limitation. Appellant argues that Shiotani “requires the rotating mechanism 19 which rotates the table 17 supporting the substrate holders 16” and “providing a reaction chamber having a rectangular cross section with a rectangular cross section with rectangular substrate holder would typically prevent the rotation altogether.” Id. at 8. We are not persuaded that the Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Lindhors and Shiotani for the reasons stated by the Examiner in the Final Action and Answer. Ans. 2—6; Final Act. 2—5, 10— 11. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of error for a number of reasons. First, Appellant does not dispute that the substrate holders are attached to Findfor’s lid and loaded from a top side of the reaction chamber. Instead, Appellant asserts that Findfor’s “substrate holder is integrated with the movable dual lid and fastened to the reaction chamber lid at three or more points” and that makes it “not movable or separate” as required by the claim. App. Br. 6. The problem with Appellant’s argument is that the claim does not preclude the substrate holder being attached to the lid. Indeed, claim 1 recites “attaching said substrate holder with a top attachment to a combined lid system.” Id. at 11 (Claims Appendix). That the substrate holder is attached to the lid means that the substrate holder is separate from the lid before it is attached. It is also movable with the lid to which it is attached, which also is not precluded by the claim. Appellant’s argument that Findfors also uses “a wand [to] load[] and unload[] substrates horizontally from the substrate holders” {id. at 6) is not persuasive because it 7 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 does not address the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on Shiotani’s teaching of vertically placed substrates (Final Act. 3—4), not Lindfors’ teaching of horizontally replacing Lindfors’ horizontally oriented substrates. Appellant does not dispute that Shiotani teaches vertically placed substrates and that its vertically placed substrates “promote laminar rather than turbulent flow, thereby improving uniformity, reduce pump-down times, and eliminate the presence of stagnant regions within the reactor” as the Examiner finds (Ans. 5). Second, Appellant’s argument that modifying Lindfors’ method with Shiotani’s method would change the principle of operation in Lindfors is not persuasive because it is not disputed that “deposition will occur on the substrates utilized in the system and method of Lindfors regardless of whether the substrates are oriented vertically or horizontally” as the Examiner finds (Ans. 4). Appellant’s assertion in the Reply Brief that “Shiotani does not relate at all to atomic layer deposition (ALD), but to a chemical layer deposition (CVD) reaction chamber” (Reply Br. 7) does not rebut the Examiner’s finding. First, this argument also was not presented in the Appeal Brief, and Appellant has not proffered a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, we need not consider this new and untimely argument in our assessment of the Examiner's § 103 rejections. 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(iv), 41.41(b)(2). Second, even if we were to consider Appellant’s argument, Appellant does not adequately explain how ALD differs from CVD and why one having ordinary skill in the art of ALD would not have considered other methods of vapor deposition for teachings about substrates, substrate holders, and reaction space. 8 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 Third, Appellant’s argument that the rectangular cross section distinguishes the claimed method over the prior art because of its advantage in minimizing source chemicals (App. Br. 9) is not persuasive because there is no limitation in the claim regarding the amount of source chemicals used. In addition, Appellant’s argument in the Reply Brief that a reaction chamber having a rectangular cross section would prevent rotation of Shiotani’s table 17 (Reply Br. 8) is not persuasive because “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”). Furthermore, the Examiner’s finding that Figure 1 of Shiotani shows a rectangular array of wafers is supported by the record. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s reasoning that “utilizing a reaction space having a rectangular cross-section would be desirable since it matches the shape of the wafer holder and thereby minimizes the amount of unnecessary open volume within the reactor.” Final Act. 5. Indeed, Appellant characterizes the rectangular cross section of the reaction space as a matter of optimization. App. Br. 9 (“the reaction chamber size can be specifically optimized for the size of the batch of vertically placed substrates”). Such optimization of the cross section to minimize the unnecessary open volume is not asserted to be outside the level of skill of an ordinary artisan. Therefore, the Examiner’s findings are supported by the preponderance of 9 Appeal 2016-001698 Application 12/154,879 the evidence. See In re Alter, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (experimentation to find optimum conditions was “no more than the application of the expected skill of the chemical engineer.”). ORDER For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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)(v). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation