Ex Parte Obweger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13418034 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/418,034 03/12/2012 Rainer OBWEGER 4303-1068 7170
91286 7590 09/05/2017
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C. (Lam)
P.O. Box 828
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303
EXAMINER
LEE, KEVIN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1711
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
s stevens @ hdp .com
troymailroom @hdp. com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAINER OBWEGER, MICHAEL BRUGGER, and
FRANZ KUMNIG
Appeal 2016-002407
Application 13/418,034
Technology Center 1700
Heard: August 18, 2017
Before MARKNAGUMO, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and GEORGE C. BEST,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants2 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 Our decision refers to the Specification (Spec.) filed March 3, 2012, the
Examiner’s Final Office Action dated October 26, 2015, Appellants’ Appeal
Brief (Appeal Br.) filed June 2, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) dated
October 26, 2015, and Appellants’ Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed December
28,2015.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lam Research AG.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-002407
Application 13/418,034
as unpatentable over Wang (US 2001/0040100 Al, pub. Nov. 15, 2001) in
view of Cohen (US 2010/0243462 Al, pub. Sept. 30, 2010), and claims 5, 7,
8, and 10 adding Mandal (US 2004/0115567 Al, pub. June 17, 2004),
Akimoto (US 5,868,865, iss. Feb. 9, 1999), Templeton (US 6,688,784 Bl,
iss. Feb. 10, 2004), or Kim (US 2004/0020520 Al, pub. Feb. 5, 2004). We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to an apparatus for treating a surface of a wafer­
shaped article, such as a semiconductor wafer, wherein treatment liquid is
dispensed onto the surface. Spec. 1:6—10. The apparatus includes a rotary
chuck for holding and rotating the article and at least one array of stationary
nozzles arranged along a radius of the article, wherein each nozzle has a
computer-controlled valve. Id. at 3:19-24, 4:3—5.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. The limitation at issue
is italicized, and paragraphing indentation has been added.
1. Apparatus for processing wafer-shaped articles, comprising
a rotary chuck adapted to hold a wafer shaped article of a
predetermined diameter thereon and to rotate the wafer
shaped article about an axis of rotation, and
a liquid-dispensing device comprising an array of liquid­
dispensing nozzles, wherein said nozzles in a process
position of said liquid-dispensing device open adjacent an
upwardly-facing major surface of a wafer shaped article
positioned on said rotary chuck and wherein said array of
nozzles extends radially from an innermost nozzle
positioned closest to said axis of rotation to an outermost
nozzle positioned closest to a periphery of a wafer shaped
article positioned on said rotary chuck,
2
Appeal 2016-002407
Application 13/418,034
said liquid dispensing device further comprising an array
of conduits with each of said conduits communicating with a
corresponding one of said array of nozzles, wherein each of
said conduits is equipped with a respective computer-
controlled valve, such that a flow of liquid through each of
said nozzles can be controlled independently of a flow of
liquid through any others of said nozzles, and wherein said
array of nozzles is mounted such that said nozzles when in
said process position are not movable relative to one another
in a direction perpendicular to said axis of rotation.
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue before us in this appeal is whether Appellants
have identified reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that it would
have been obvious to invert Wang’s Figures 26A and 26B apparatus such
that the nozzles open adjacent an upwardly-facing surface of a wafer in view
of Wang’s teaching of an alternative embodiment, as seen in Figure 37A,
with an upwardly-facing wafer arrangement and Cohen’s teaching that the
wafer may be positioned facing either up or down in a liquid-dispensing
wafer-processing apparatus. We answer this question in the negative and,
therefore, will sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. In doing so,
we adopt the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions of law as our
own. We add the following comments for emphasis.
There is no dispute that Wang discloses an apparatus for processing
wafer-shaped articles as recited in claim 1 including, inter alia, a liquid­
dispensing device comprising an array of liquid-dispensing nozzles. Wang,
Figs. 26A and 26B; compare Final Act. 4—5 with Appeal Br. 3—6 and Reply
Br. 1—3. However, in this embodiment, Wang’s nozzles, in a process
position of the liquid-dispensing device, open adjacent a downwardly-facing
major surface of the wafer shaped article positioned on a rotary chuck.
3
Appeal 2016-002407
Application 13/418,034
Nonetheless, Wang discloses an alternate embodiment in which the wafer
has a major surface that is upwardly facing with respect to a liquid
dispensing nozzle. Final Act. 5; Wang 1347, Fig. 37A. Wang also teaches
another embodiment wherein the wafer surface to be processed is oriented
vertically. Wang, Fig. 37B. Moreover, Cohen discloses an apparatus for
processing wafer-shaped articles wherein an array of liquid-dispensing
nozzles open adjacent an upwardly-facing major surface of a wafer-shaped
article. Final Act. 5; Cohen 123, Figs. 2—5. In addition, Cohen teaches that
the wafers may be processed in a variety of orientations including face up,
face down, and face vertical positions. Final Act. 5; Cohen 123. Therefore,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to reorient Wang’s
nozzle array such that they open adjacent an upwardly-facing major surface
of the wafer shaped article as a known alternative orientation as taught by
both Wang and Cohen. Final Act. 5 (citing MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(A)
and (C)).
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would have had no apparent
reason to invert Wang’s embodiment of Figures 26A and 26B, because it
would not function in that orientation. Appeal Br. 4. Appellants contend
that not only would electrolyte not overflow to the annular drain in an
inverted position, but the wafer could not be selectively wetted with
electrolyte as it would travel radially outwardly across the wafer. Id.
Appellants also urge that the wafer also could not be selectively plated in the
inverted position because the anode is a single anode that extends across the
full diameter of the wafer. Id. Moreover, Appellants assert that wetting the
entire surface with electrolyte would negate the purpose of providing
multiple, independently controlled nozzles. Id.
4
Appeal 2016-002407
Application 13/418,034
Further, as to Cohen, Appellants assert that Cohen has no individually
controllable valves, but instead uses all the jets or nozzles to create a
uniform flow of electrolyte over the surface of the wafer. Id. at 5. As such,
Appellants argue that a skilled artisan would have no apparent reason to
modify Wang’s embodiment of Figures 26A and 26B, which is designed to
apply electrolyte selectively only to desired regions of a wafer, in view of
Cohen’s rotating jet assembly, which is designed to dispense liquid to the
entire wafer surface. Id. According to Appellants, the Examiner’s proposed
modification to Wang is not a reversal or rearrangement of parts, but would
render Wang incapable of performing in the manner described for the
disclosed structure. Id. at 6.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of reversible error. As the
Examiner correctly notes, Appellants misconstrue the fundamental operation
of Wang, discount the knowledge and skill of the ordinary artisan, and too
narrowly interpret Wang’s intended purpose. Ans. 3. A person of ordinary
skill in the art, when inverting Wang’s Figure 26 embodiment, would take
account of this change in orientation by adjusting the overflow drain walls to
ensure that excess electrolyte would continue to overflow and drain away. A
person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Wang’s Figure 37 demonstrates such accommodation when the orientation is
inverted and would thus would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
A proper obviousness analysis necessarily takes account of “demands known
to the design community,” “the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art,” and “the inferences and creative
5
Appeal 2016-002407
Application 13/418,034
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S.
at 418.
In addition, selective plating would not be inhibited when inverting
Wang’s Figure 26 embodiment because the flow of electrolyte would begin
from the outermost nozzles and proceed inwardly as disclosed in paragraphs
286—293, such that plating of the peripheral region occurs first, followed by
successively inwardly located regions. Further, should wetting of regions
outwardly from a set of nozzles occur, Wang teaches at least one solution is
to provide multiple anodes as depicted in Figure 15B. Indeed, Wang’s
Figure 37A embodiment demonstrates that selective electrode activation in
the region of the activated nozzle would also ensure selective plating
regardless of the flow of electrolyte over the wafer surface. Appellants do
not argue, much less establish, that these modifications, all taught in Wang,
would have been beyond the ordinary skill in the art. As for Wang’s use of a
single nozzle in Figure 37A, we note that this embodiment requires that the
nozzle be radially movable in order to selectively dispense electrolyte on the
wafer surface. Wang teaches the use of a single, radially movable nozzle as
an alternative to an array of fixed, radially located nozzles that selectively
dispense liquid on the wafer surface.
Turning to Appellants’ arguments regarding Cohen, Appellants
misapprehend the Examiner’s rejection, in particular the Examiner’s reliance
on Cohen. We note the Examiner merely relies on Cohen for teaching that
dispensing processing liquid onto a wafer surface in a variety of orientations
was known in the art, including an upwardly facing wafer surface, a
downwardly facing wafer surface, and a vertically oriented wafer surface.
The Examiner does not, and indeed need not, rely on Cohen for individually
6
Appeal 2016-002407
Application 13/418,034
controllable valves because Wang already teaches these. Given Wang’s
disclosure of each of these orientations as well (e.g., Wang, Figs 26A, 37A,
and 37B), Cohen merely reinforces the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been within the ordinary skill in the art to invert the Figure 26A
embodiment to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation
of success.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Final Office Action and the Answer, the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wang in view of
Cohen, alone or further in view of Mandal, Akimoto, Templeton, or Kim, is
affirmed.
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
7