Ex Parte Maeda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2018

14043379 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/043,379 10/01/2013 116 7590 09/05/2018 PEARNE & GORDON LLP 1801 EAST 9TH STREET SUITE 1200 CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108 UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Koji Maeda 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. EBARAl-51748 3863 EXAMINER JAVED, MIRZA ISRAR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): patdocket@peame.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KOJI MAEDA, HIROSHI SHIMOMOTO, HISAJIRO NAKANO, MASA YOSHI IMAI, and YO I CHI SHI OKAW A Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 1 Technology Center 1700 Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 8-11. 2 1 Appellant is the Applicant, EBARA CORPORATION, which, according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief (Appeal Br.) 2, filed March 28, 2017. 2 Claim 7 has been withdrawn from consideration. Final Office Action (Final Act.) Office Action Summary, notice emailed December 29, 2016. Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). 3 We AFFIRM. The subject matter on appeal relates to substrate cleaning apparatus (see, e.g., claim 1 ). The Inventors disclose a wafer is typically cleaned after it has been polished, such as via an etching liquid and a rinsing liquid. Spec. 1: 14--22. According to the Inventors, conventional cleaning operations take a long time to complete because the etching process and the rinsing process are performed separately. Id. 1 :22-24. In view of this, the Inventors disclose a substrate cleaning apparatus, an embodiment of which is depicted in Figure 1, which is reproduced below: FIG.1 Figure 1 is a schematic view of a substrate cleaning apparatus 3 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed January 28, 2014, the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) dated July 27, 2017, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) dated September 26, 2017. 2 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 The substrate cleaning apparatus includes, among other things, a substrate holder 1, 4 a chemical liquid nozzle 11, a two-fluid nozzle 12, and an arm 15 holding the chemical liquid nozzle 11 and the two-fluid nozzle 12. Id. 3: 15-20. The chemical liquid nozzle 11 is coupled to a chemical liquid supply unit 31 and the two-fluid nozzle 12 is coupled to a liquid supply unit 41 and a gas supply unit 51. Id. 4:9-16. The Inventors state that the substrate cleaning apparatus is capable of efficiently cleaning a substrate ( e.g., a wafer) by having a chemical liquid nozzle for supplying a chemical liquid onto the substrate and a two-fluid nozzle for supplying a two-fluid jet onto the substrate. Id. 1:27-28, 2:1-9. According to the Inventors, the chemical liquid can remove foreign matter from the substrate surface and the two-fluid jet can wash away the chemical liquid and removed foreign matter from the substrate surface, which shortens the time required for cleaning the substrate in its entirety. Id. 2: 19-25. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief. Limitations at issue are italicized. 1. A substrate cleaning apparatus, comprising: a substrate holder for holding and rotating a substrate; a chemical liquid nozzle for supplying a chemical liquid onto the substrate, the chemical liquid nozzle coupled to a chemical liquid supply unit; a two-fluid nozzle for supplying a jet of a mixture of a liquid and a gas onto the substrate, the two-fluid nozzle coupled to a liquid supply unit and a gas supply unit; and a moving mechanism for moving the chemical liquid nozzle and the two-fluid nozzle together from a center to a periphery of the substrate along a direction of movement, wherein the chemical liquid nozzle and the two-fluid 4 Throughout this Decision, for clarity, we present labels to elements in figures in bold font, regardless of their presentation in the original document. 3 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 nozzle are adjacent to each other with a predetermined distance therebetween, and the chemical liquid nozzle and the two-fluid nozzle are secured to the moving mechanism, and a distance of the chemical liquid nozzle from a rotating axis of the substrate holder is longer than a distance of the two- fluid nozzle from the rotating axis of the substrate holder when the moving mechanism moves the chemical liquid nozzle and the two-fluid nozzle radially outwardly from the rotating axis along the direction of movement. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL I. Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Hirose6 in view ofNanba; 7 II. Claims 2--4 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Hirose in view ofNanba and further in view of Oikawa; 8 and III. Claims 8 and 9 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) over Hirose, Nanba, and Oikawa and further in view of Okuda. 9 5 The Examiner states claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected in the statement of the rejection. Ans. 2. However, claim 6 is canceled and the Examiner sets forth rejections for clams 10 and 11. Appeal Br. 14; Ans. 6-7. Therefore, claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected underÂ§ I03(a) over Hirose and Nanba. 6 Hirose et al., US 2003/0079764 Al, published May 1, 2003 ("Hirose"). 7 Nanba et al., US 2007/0131256 Al, published June 14, 2007 ("Nanba"). 8 Oikawa et al., US 2009/0301518 Al, published Dec. 10, 2009 ("Oikawa"). 9 Okuda et al., US 2004/0206452 Al, published Oct. 21, 2004 ("Okuda"). 4 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 B. DISCUSSION Rejection I Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Hirose in view ofNanba. The Examiner finds Hirose discloses a substrate cleaning apparatus including, among other things, a substrate holder 7, a chemical liquid nozzle 35 coupled to a chemical liquid supply unit 39, a two-fluid nozzle 36 for supplying a mixture of liquid and gas, and a moving mechanism 40, 77 for moving the chemical liquid nozzle 35 and the two-fluid nozzle 36. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds Hirose does not explicitly disclose a liquid supply unit and a gas supply unit for the two-fluid nozzle 36 but finds Nanba discloses a liquid supply section, a water supply section, and a gas supply section. Id. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify Hirose in view ofNanba to improve rinse efficiency. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes the distances of the chemical liquid nozzle and the two-fluid nozzle with respect to a rotating axis of the substrate holder when the nozzles are radially moved, as recited in claim 1, regards an intended use. Id. at 3--4. Alternatively, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the nozzles of Hirose, as modified in view of Nanba, as an obvious rearrangement of parts. Id. at 4. Appellant contends Hirose does not teach or suggest a moving mechanism that moves a chemical liquid nozzle and a two-fluid nozzle, as recited in claim 1, because Hirose discloses moving its liquid nozzle 35 and two-fluid nozzle 36 so the liquid nozzle 35 is arranged closer to the center of a wafer than the two-fluid nozzle 36. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant asserts Hirose' s holding arm 77 is not capable of the movement recited in claim 1 5 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 because "the holding arm 77 cannot move the liquid nozzle 35 and two-fluid nozzle 3 6 in the leftward direction from the center of wafer W to the left periphery of wafer W due to interference from the drive pulley 31" and "[t]he only direction in which the holding arm 77 can move the liquid nozzle 35 and two-fluid nozzle 36 from the center of wafer W to the periphery of wafer W, as required by claim 1, is the rightward direction." Appeal Br. 7- 8; Reply Br. 3--4. In addition, Appellant contends the movement limitation of claim 1 is not an intended use but recites structure that must be realized when the moving mechanism moves in the claimed manner. Appeal Br. 9; Rely Br. 2. Appellant argues N anba also fails to disclose the claimed moving mechanism because N anba does not disclose a two-fluid nozzle and the combination of Hirose and Nanba does not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 6-8. Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive. We agree that claim 1 recites relationships between the distances of the chemical liquid nozzle and two-fluid nozzle from the rotating axis of the substrate holder when the nozzles are moved radially outward from the rotating axis by moving mechanism as an intended use. Claim 1 does not recite a controller or other device that would cause the moving mechanism to move in the claimed manner (e.g., according to the embodiment depicted in Appellant's Figures 4A--4E) to cause the recited movement. Instead, the language of claim 1 merely recites the movement as a function or intended use for the claimed apparatus. 6 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 As our reviewing court stated in In re Schreiber: A patent applicant is free to recite features of an apparatus either structurally or functionally. See In re Swinehart, 439 F .2d 210, 212 ( CCP A 1971) ("[T]here is nothing intrinsically wrong with [ defining something by what it does rather than what it is] in drafting patent claims."). Yet, choosing to define an element functionally, i.e., by what it does, carries with it a risk. As our predecessor court stated in Swinehart, 439 F.2d at 213: where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, "[i]t is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable." Id. at 1477. Therefore, we consider whether Hirose teaches a structure capable of performing the intended use. Hirose discloses an apparatus for cleaning a semiconductor wafer substrate. Hirose ,r 2. The apparatus includes a cleaning unit 50, as embodiment of which is depicted in Figure 4, as reproduced below. 7 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 85 31 L, 68a 34 68 FIG. 4 50 j 41 82a ' 77 Figure 4 is a plan view of Hirose' s cleaning unit embodiment. The cleaning unit 50 includes a spin chuck for holding a wafer W, a rinse nozzle 35 supplied with a rinsing liquid (e.g., deionized water), a two- fluid nozzle 36 supplied with an inert gas and a liquid ( e.g., deionized water), a connecting member 40 housing the rinse nozzle 35 and the two- fluid nozzle 36, and a nozzle holding arm 77 that the connecting member 40 is attached to. Id. ,r,r 71, 74, 76-79. The holding arm 77 is movable along a guide rail 34 and driven by a stepping motor (not shown in Figure 4) through a drive pulley 31. Id. ,r 79. 8 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 The Examiner finds Hirose' s apparatus would be capable of the movement recited in claim 1 simply by moving the holding arm 77 to the left in Figure 4. Ans. 11-12. We agree that the holding arm 77, as depicted in Figure 4, would be capable of moving to the left along guide rail 34, which appears to extend substantially leftward past the center of the wafer W to drive pulley 31. Thus, the two-fluid nozzle 36 may be positioned left of the center of the wafer W and the rinse nozzle 35 may be even further to the left of the wafer center due to the arrangement of the nozzles 35, 36 in the connecting member 40. As admitted by Appellant at page 4 of the Reply Brief, "the Examiner is correct in that Hirose' s arm 77 can move left and right." However, Appellant cites no support in Hirose's disclosure for the bare assertion that drive pulley 31 would prevent leftward movement so the two-fluid nozzle 36 is prevented from being positioned past the wafer center to any degree. Moreover, because the direction of movement is defined in claim 1 by the movement of the nozzles from a center to a periphery of the substrate, in Hirose, this direction is a rightward movement. Once Hirose' s nozzles have been moved to their greatest leftward extent and begin to move rightward, Hirose' s chemical liquid nozzle initially will be spaced further from the rotating axis or center of the substrate than the two-fluid nozzle. Claim 1 does not require that this relationship is maintained during the entire movement of the nozzles from the center to the periphery of the substrate. To the extent Hirose's drawings do not accurately depict the cleaning unit 50 or Hirose's apparatus is otherwise incapable of the intended movement recited in claim 1, Nanba demonstrates a structure capable of such a nozzle movement was known in the art, i.e., Nanba's moving 9 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 mechanism is capable of moving the nozzles diametrically across the substrate from periphery to periphery. As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 10, 12), Nanba demonstrates it was known for a nozzle arm to move in opposite directions. Figure 9 ofNanba is reproduced below. 10' '~ ....,........,,........,........_.,,........_~/.~,~-~,~~~~~~ . , / 64--Â·'11'.:L..EANING-UQUID SUPPLY SECTIONlÂ·Â· 65 PURE-WATER SUPPLY SECTION 66--),..... __ N_r_G-AS-S-UPPL Y SECTION 69 50 / 63' ; FIG.9 Figure 9 is a plan view of a substrate cleaning apparatus N anba discloses a cleaning apparatus 10' that includes, among other things, a process liquid nozzle 61, a pure water nozzle 61a, and a nitrogen nozzle 62 arranged on a nozzle holding member 63' attached to an end of a scan arm 67. Nanba ,r 65. The scan arm 67 is mounted to a support member 69 that is placed on a guide rail 68. Id. ,r 40. Figure 9 includes an arrow labeled "+Y" and an arrow labeled "-Y," as shown above, which indicates movement of the scan arm 67 in opposite directions. Further, guide rail 68 extends from one side of the wafer W to another, which suggests it was 10 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 known for the nozzles of the nozzle holding member 63' to be positioned between one edge of a wafer and its opposite edge. Appellant argues that rearranging the nozzles 35, 36 of Hirose would destroy Hirose' s intended function of the rinse nozzle 35 to form a liquid film when the two-fluid nozzle 36 deviates outward from the periphery of a wafer W and the prior art does not provide a motivation for such a modification. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-6. These arguments are also unpersuasive because a modification of Hirose to use the scan arm, support member, and guide rail ofNanba would be based on the well-established principle that, for an improvement to be patentable, it must be more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions (i.e., using a known nozzle holding member and scan arm to move and position nozzles). KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Moreover, although such a modification would permit Hirose's nozzles 35, 36 to move completely to the left edge of the wafer W in Figure 4 of Hirose, the modification would still permit the nozzles 35, 36 to move rightward, as taught by Hirose in Figures 9A-9D. Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 5, 10, and 11. Appeal Br. 11-12. For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 over Hirose and Nanba. Rejections II and III Claims 2--4 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Hirose in view ofNanba and further in view of Oikawa. 11 Appeal 2017-011833 Application 14/043,379 Claims 8 and 9 are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Hirose, Nanba, and Oikawa and further in view of Okuda. Appellant merely reiterates the arguments set forth in support of the patentability of claim 1 and contends Oikawa and Okuda do not remedy the deficiencies of the references applied in the rejection of claim 1. Id. For the reasons set forth above, there are no deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 that require curing by Oikawa and Okuda. For the reasons discussed above and those set forth in the Examiner's Answer, we sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2--4, 8, and 9. C. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 12