Ex Parte Okita et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2019

13699920 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/699,920 11/26/2012
52349 7590 01/28/2019
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shogo Okita
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.
2012_5477A 1387
EXAMINER
FORD, NATHAN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1716
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHOGO OKITA and SUMIO MIYAKE
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
Technology Center 1700
Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JENNIFER R. GUPTA,
and MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1-5, 7 and 8 of Application
13/699,920 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Final Act. (Sept. 30, 2016),
2--4. Appellants 1 seek reversal of these rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
1 Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd., is identified as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
BACKGROUND
The present application generally relates to the processing of wafers
of the type used in the manufacture of integrated circuits. Spec. ,r 1-2. 2 In
the course of manufacture, such wafers may be subject to plasma processing.
Id. Prior to being conveyed to the processing chamber, the wafers are held
in a tray having several "accommodation holes." The tray (including the
wafers) is placed on a support pedestal (also referred to as a susceptor). Id.
,r 3. This is shown in Figure 1 lB, reproduced below.
w 7d
' f w .. ~ .
51a
51 b---\ ~, ;;=----- 10 ---·, --~ ·,, 1 ("''~2:.,.,,,v ,, ./ / ..... ....,_, .... ~··-" ~ \. .} u. ' __ .... J>'·,-....t.···
7d~~x!:_~~!~f;:;~',, 51 b
51b W
Figure 11 B shows tray 7 being placed on susceptor 51 in the processing
chamber. Id. ,r 21.
Cylindrical columns (wafer holding portions 51 b) of the support
pedestal protrude through the wafer such that "the wafer W accommodated
2 References to the Specification ( or "Spec."), are to the Specification as
filed November 26, 2012.
2
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
in each accommodation hole 7 a of the tray 7 is held so as to float above the
tray 7 by the wafer holding portion 51 b entering in each accommodation
hole 7a from below." Id. ,r 48. Where, however, there is an accommodation
hole with no wafer, the wafer holding portion which lacks a wafer is directly
exposed to plasma. Id. ,r 5. The Specification teaches that"[ w ]hen the
wafer holding portion is exposed to the plasma, not only the wafer holding
portion but also the entire plasma processing apparatus may be damaged."
Id.
The Specification teaches that "an object of the present invention is to
provide a plasma processing apparatus that can prevent the wafer holding
portion of the support pedestal from being directly exposed to plasma from
any accommodation hole of the tray where no wafer is present." Id. ,r 6.
Accordingly, the Specification teaches a plasma processing apparatus that
includes "a wafer presence-absence detecting unit that detects whether or not
the wafer is present in each of the accommodation holes of the tray." Id. ,r 7.
Such detection may occur "while the tray is rotated by the rotary table." Id.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with certain language bolded for emphasis:
1. A plasma processing apparatus, comprising:
a stock unit configured to supply and collect a
conveyable tray accommodating a wafer in each of a plurality
of accommodation holes penetrating through the tray in a
thickness direction of the tray, the accommodation holes being
arranged so as to surround a center of the tray;
a processing unit configured to perform plasma
processing to each wafer accommodated in the tray supplied
from the stock unit, the processing unit including:
a processing chamber; and
3
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
a susceptor accommodated in the processing
chamber, the susceptor being configured to hold each wafer and
the tray during plasma processing, the susceptor including a
tray placing portion and a plurality of wafer holding portions,
each of the wafer holding portions projecting upwardly from
the tray placing portion and being configured to enter a
respective one of the accommodation holes of the tray from
below so as to lift and hold the respective wafer accommodated
in the respective one of the accommodation holes;
an alignment unit including a rotary table on which the
tray is placed before being subjected to the plasma processing,
the rotary table being configured to rotate the tray within a
horizontal plane around the center of the tray, and positioning
of the tray on the rotary table being performed at the alignment
unit;
a wafer presence-absence detecting unit configured to
detect whether or not any wafer is present in each of the
accommodation holes of the tray placed on the rotary table of
the alignment unit;
a conveying mechanism configured to convey the tray
accommodating the wafer in each of the plurality of
accommodation holes from the stock unit to the rotary table of
the alignment unit, and configured to convey the tray from the
rotary table of the alignment unit to the susceptor of the
processing unit; and
a controller programmed to:
continuously rotate the rotary table of the
alignment unit so that the tray is continuously rotated around
the center of the tray by the rotary table,
to control the wafer presence-absence detecting
unit to sequentially detect whether or not any wafer is
present in each of the accommodation holes arranged around
the center of the tray while the tray is being continuously
rotated, and
to convey the tray from the rotary table to the
susceptor by the conveying mechanism when the wafer
presence-absence detecting unit detects a wafer is present in
4
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
each of the accommodation holes of the tray placed on the
rotary table so as to prevent the wafer holding portion from
being directly exposed to plasma during the plasma processing.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. i-ii) ( emphasis added).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) (pre-
AIA)3 as obvious over Mitani et al. 4 in view of Aikawa et al., 5
Kato et al., 6 and Okita et al. 7 Final Act. 2--4.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious
over Mitani in view of Aikawa, Kato, and Okita, and in further
view ofOhsawa et al. 8 Id. at 4.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) (pre-AIA) as obvious
over Mitani in view of Aikawa, Kato, and Okita, and in further
view of Jacob. 9 Id.
3 Because this application was filed before the March 16, 2013, effective
date of the America Invents Act, we refer to the pre-AIA version of the
statute.
4 US 2010/0248458 Al, published Sept. 30, 2010 ("Mitani").
5 US 2010/0124610 Al, published May 20, 2010 ("Aikawa").
6 US 2010/0055312 Al, published Mar. 4, 2010 ("Kato").
7 US 2009/0255901 Al, published Oct. 15, 2009 ("Okita").
8 US 5,645,391, issued July 8, 1997 ("Ohsawa").
9 US 5,796,486, issued Aug. 18, 1998 ("Jacob").
5
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
DISCUSSION
Appellants do not present separate argument concerning each of the
foregoing rejections; rather, they rely upon their arguments presented in
regard to claim 1 (the sole independent claim). Appeal Br. 8. Accordingly,
the remaining claims at issue will stand or fall with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants present two arguments for the patentability of claim 1.
First, they argue that the cited references do not teach a controller
programmed to detect a wafer "while the tray is being continuously rotated."
Appeal Br. 4---6. Second, Appellants argue that the cited references do not
teach an apparatus that conveys a tray to the susceptor when the wafer
presence-absence detecting unit detects a wafer is present in each of the
accommodation holes of the tray. Id. at 6-8. We consider these arguments
m sequence.
Wafer Detection While the Tray is "Continuously Rotated"
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds that the primary reference,
Mitani, "is silent regarding the feature of a presence-absence detector."
Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that Aikawa teaches a detector such as a
video camera disposed above the chamber to assess the position of each
wafer. Id. at 2. The Examiner, however, also finds that the device of
Aikawa "indexes the tray during wafer detection rather than continuously
rotating the tray, as is claimed." Id. at 3. The Examiner further finds that
"[ e ]ven so, this latter technique [ detection during continuous rotation] is
known in the art. Kato, for instance, disposes a camera above a substrate
tray so as to monitor its alignment during rotation." Id.
6
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have known that one could combine the process of monitoring during
continuous rotation as taught by Kato with the video camera used for wafer
position detection as taught by Aikawa. Id. The Examiner concludes that "it
would have been obvious to program Aikawa's controller to continuously
rotate the tray during the assessment period to procure substantial efficiency
gains." Id.
Appellants assert error on several bases. Appellants argue that
Aikawa teaches a camera programmed "to detect the center position of each
wafer W, rather than simply detecting the presence of a wafer W in the
'accommodation hole' 24." Appeal Br. 5. ( emphasis in original). This
argument is not persuasive. As determined by the Examiner, "the act of
assessing wafer position, by definition, presupposes the detection of wafer
presence." Answer 3.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's finding regarding the video
camera of Aikawa is unsupported. The Examiner finds that "Aikawa's
video camera is capable of effectively imaging the rotary table in either case,
indexed or continuous." Final Act. 3. Appellants argue that the "primary
objective of the Aikawa reference is effective reduction of detection errors."
Appeal Br. 6. Appellants further argue that, as a consequence, "[t]his
emphasis on accuracy appears to be at odds with the Examiner's suggestion
that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify the teachings of the
Aikawa reference to provide detection during continuous rotation so as to
'augment efficiency."' Appeal Br. 6.
This argument does not rebut the Examiner's determination that one
of skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the efficiency of the
detection process. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165
7
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
(Fed. Cir. 2006) ("A given course of action often has simultaneous
advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate
motivation to combine.") Further, the Examiner determines that Aikawa
teaches, as one option, to use a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera. See
Aikawa ,r 54. Similarly, the Examiner finds that the Specification teaches to
use a CCD camera for wafer detection. Answer 3--4; Spec. ,r 79. The
Examiner reasons that Aikawa teaches a camera to detect wafers in an
efficient and error-free manner to the same extent as the Specification. We
discern no error in this reasoning. Nor does any teaching of Aikawa
regarding accuracy amount to a "teaching away" from continuous detection.
Conveying a Tray to the Susceptor When the Wafer Detecting Unit Detects a
Wafer is Present in Each Accommodation Hole
Appellants additionally argue that the cited references do not teach an
apparatus that conveys a tray to the susceptor only when the wafer presence-
absence detecting unit detects a wafer is present in each of the
accommodation holes of the tray. Id. at 6-8. That is, Appellants argue that
the references do not teach the following limitation:
a controller programmed ...
to convey the tray from the rotary table to the susceptor
by the conveying mechanism when the wafer presence-absence
detecting unit detects a wafer is present in each of the
accommodation holes of the tray placed on the rotary table so
as to prevent the wafer holding portion from being directly
exposed to plasma during the plasma processing.
Appeal Br. (Claims App. i-ii). The Examiner finds that Mitani teaches this
limitation as follows:
Given that Mitani's purpose is to fully load each tray with
wafers, claim 1 's final paragraph becomes tautological in the
8
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
sense that it will be satisfied in every case. As the prior art is
accorded the assumption of full operability, the detecting unit
will always already encounter a tray that is fully loaded, at
which point the tray is conveyed to a susceptor for plasma
processing, as the claim requires.
Final Act. 3. The limitation at issue implies, but does not require, that the
tray will not be conveyed to the susceptor when the detector fails to detect a
wafer in each accommodation hole.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Am. A cad. of Sci.
Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing claims
broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because the
applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise
claim coverage." Id. Accordingly, the limitation quoted above is construed
to require only detection of a wafer in each accommodation hole and
conveying the tray to the susceptor. See Ex Parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-
007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (PTAB Apr. 28 2016) (informative) ("The
Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the
remaining method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed
under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim").
Appellants argue that Mitani does not teach fully loading each tray.
Appeal Br. 7. This position is not well supported. The Examiner cites
Mitani's teaching that "the susceptor S ... has 4 substrate mounting portions
Sws on which 4 substrates W can be respectively mounted at once."
Answer 5 ( citing Mitani ,r 28) ( emphasis added). The Examiner further
determines that Aikawa teaches wafer detection. Answer 3 ( determining
that wafer detection occurs in conjunction with wafer position assessment).
9
Appeal2017-011615
Application 13/699,920
In addition, although beyond the scope of claim 1 as construed, we
note that Aikawa teaches to suspend operations if the center of the wafer is
not determined to be within a defined position. See Aikawa, Fig. 2
(Step 25).
Accordingly, we determine that Appellants have failed to show
reversible error in this regard.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are 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).
AFFIRMED
10