Ex Parte Lindfors

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

12154879 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

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