Ex Parte Lindow et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613327302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) 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. 13/327,302 12/15/2011 Ed Lindow 3356-P10726US 2106 (FI 1/0904EL 24247 7590 12/29/2016 TRASKBRITT, P.C. P.O. BOX 2550 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84110 EXAMINER WEDDLE, ALEXANDER MARION ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1712 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): U S PTOMail @ traskbritt .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ED LINDOW, RONALD BERTRAM and CLAUDIO CANIZARES Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1—38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM. Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 Appellants’ invention is best illustrated by the independent claim 1, reproduced below: 1. A deposition system, comprising: a reaction chamber including one or more chamber walls; at least one thermal radiation emitter configured to emit thermal radiation within a range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation in at least one of the infrared region and the visible region of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum through at least one chamber wall of the one or more chamber walls and into an interior of the reaction chamber, the at least one chamber wall comprising a transparent material at least substantially transparent to electromagnetic radiation over the range of wavelengths; at least one metrology device including a sensor located outside the reaction chamber and oriented and configured to receive an electromagnetic radiation signal at one or more wavelengths within the range of wavelengths passing from an interior of the reaction chamber to an exterior of the reaction chamber; and at least one volume of opaque material, the opaque material being opaque to wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation within the range of wavelengths, the at least one volume of the opaque material located to prevent at least some thermal radiation to be emitted by the at least one thermal radiation emitter from being detected by the sensor of the at least one metrology device. 2 Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 Appellants request review of the following rejections from the Examiner’s Final Action (App. Br. 11): I. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 18—21, 24—25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Bertram (WO 2010/023516 Al, published March 4, 2010). II. Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bertram. III. Claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bertram and Collins (US 2010/0075488 Al, published March 25, 2010). For Rejection I, Appellants present arguments for independent claim 1 and rely on these arguments to address the rejection of independent claim 20 and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, and 30. See Appeal Brief, generally. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the subject matter before us on appeal. Claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 18—21, 24, 25, and 30 stand or fall with claim 1. For Rejection II, Appellants also rely on the arguments presented when discussing claim 1 in addressing the rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 33, and 34. Id. at 26—29. Appellants present separate arguments for claim 36 and rely on these arguments to address the rejection of claim 37. Id. at 29-33. Accordingly, we limit our discussion to claim 36 for this rejection. Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 33, and 34 stand or fall with claim 1 and claim 37 stands or falls with claim 36. 3 Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 With respect to Rejection III, Appellants rely on essentially the same arguments in addressing the rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, and 38. Id. at 37^40. Accordingly, we select claim 3 as representative of the subject matter on appeal for this rejection. Claims 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, and 38 stand or fall with claim 3. OPINION Rejection I We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability. However, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection for essentially the reasons expressed in the Final Action and we add the following for emphasis. Independent claim 1 is directed to a deposition chamber comprising at least one metrology device and at least one volume of opaque material located to prevent at least some thermal radiation emitted by at least one thermal radiation emitter from being detected by a sensor of the at least one metrology device. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action for a statement of the rejection. Final Act. 2—3. Appellants argue Bertram does not describe a deposition chamber comprising at least one volume of opaque material as required by the subject matter of independent claim 1. According to Appellants, Bertram discloses that both the walls and the windows of the chamber can be produced from 4 Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 the same material, i.e., quartz or fused silica, and the windows are simply an integral component of the chamber walls. App. Br. 16; Bertram | 68. Appellants argue the Examiner has not provided any extrinsic evidence that makes clear that walls comprising an opaque material are present in Bertram’s chamber. App. Br. 17. We are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons presented by the Examiner. Ans. 3—5. Moreover, Appellants’ arguments are based on one of the many embodiments described by Bertram. Bertram || 10—14, 68. Appellants have not directed us to any portion of Bertram that requires the chamber walls to comprise quartz and fused silica. On the contrary, the portion relied upon by Appellants clearly states it is directed to an embodiment where the chamber also includes materials such as quartz and fused silica. Bertram | 68. Thus, Appellants’ arguments and documentary evidence do not adequately explain why Bertram does not envision chamber walls that would be opaque to specific radiation wavelengths. Cf. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered”) (quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976)). Appellants’ arguments do not distinguish the claimed invention from the broader teachings of Bertram. Further, the International Publication Number WO 2010/023516 to Bertram and the instant application are owned by the same assignee (Soitec) and share one common inventor (Ronald Bertram). Thus, the reference to Bertram is Appellants’ own prior art and Appellants are in the best position to explain the reference and distinguish the claimed deposition system from the deposition system disclosed in Bertram. That is, given Bertram’s 5 Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 broader disclosure, it is appropriate to shift the burden to Appellants to show that Bertram does not describe or envision opaque walls as claimed. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants have not adequately explained why one skilled in the art would have understood the disclosure of Bertram to limit the chamber wall of Bertram as comprising only quartz and fused silica. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 18—21, 24—25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. Rejection II Claim 36 is directed to a method of depositing material on a workpiece substrate using a deposition system comprising at least one volume of opaque material to shield a sensor from at least some thermal radiation generated to heat the workpiece substrate. We refer to the Examiner’s Final Action for a statement of the rejection. Final Act. 5—6. Appellants argue the source 102 and detector 103 of Bertram’s method are not used to sense an electromagnetic radiation signal representative of at least one characteristic of the at least one workpiece substrate, but rather they are used to determine the type and amount of chloride-based chemicals present in a chamber. App. Br. 30; Bertram || 25— 30. We find this argument unavailing and agree with the Examiner’s determination that the claim does not state any particular characteristic of the at least one workpiece substrate that is being sensed. Ans. 6. We also agree 6 Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 with the Examiner’s determination that detection of the type and amount of chloride present in the chamber using an electromagnetic radiation signal is using a signal representative of the semiconductor growth characteristic on the workpiece substrate. Ans. 6; Bertram || 25—32. Appellants’ arguments do not point to error in the Examiner’s determination of obviousness. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. Rejection III Claim 3 requires a body positioned within the interior of the reaction chamber, the body comprising the at least one volume of opaque material. The Examiner relied on Collins’ teaching of an opaque quartz liner to insulate the chamber wall from the heat in the chamber where the liner can be inside the chamber and a part of the wall. Final Act. 7; Collins Figure 1, 119. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bertram’s apparatus and process to incorporate at least one volume of opaque quartz as at least a portion of at least one chamber wall and to have a body of opaque quartz positioned within the interior of the reaction chamber in view of Collins’ disclosure. Final Act. 7. Appellants argue Collins simply discloses using an opaque liner 131 to insulate the chamber wall from heat in the processing volume 118 within the chamber thereof and that there is no teaching or suggestion in Collins that would have led one skilled in the art to modify Bertram’s system so as to use the opaque liner 131 to prevent at least some thermal radiation 7 Appeal 2015-008235 Application 13/327,302 emitted by the heater from being detected by the detector 103 of Bertram. App. Br. 38. We are unpersuaded by this argument for the reasons presented by the Examiner. Ans. 9. Moreover, Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings with respect to Collins. App. Br. 37. Instead, Appellants contest that the combined teachings of Collins would not have led one skilled in the art to use an opaque material to prevent at least some thermal radiation emitted by the heater from being detected by the detector 103 of Bertram. Id. at 38. However, the language of representative claim 3 does not require the further body of opaque material to be positioned as argued. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22,23,28,29, 31,32, 35, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons presented by the Examiner and given above. ORDER The Examiner’s prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a) are affirmed. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation