Ex Parte Lindow et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

13327302 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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