Ex Parte Ray et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 30, 201914978120 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/978,120 12/22/2015 29393 7590 05/02/2019 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR AndyM. Ray 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. EATNP310USA 7224 EXAMINER SMITH, DAVIDE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2881 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2019 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): docketing@eschweilerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDY M. RAY, EDWARD C. EISNER, and BO H. VANDERBERG Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 Technology Center 2800 Before ROMULO H. DELMENDO, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 Appellant is the Applicant, Axcelis Technologies, Inc., which, according to the Appeal Brief, is also the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Appellant describes the invention as relating to a "dosimetry system method for expediently determining an ion beam current profile." Spec. 1:13-14. Dosimetry is defined as "[t]he measurement of ions implanted in a [semiconductor] wafer or workpiece." Id. at 1:25-26. The invention seeks to improve the speed of such dosimetry measurements by utilizing an ion beam scanning speed greater than the speed utilized during actual implementation. Id. at 2: 18-22; 3 :25-3: 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An ion implantation system for implanting ions into a workpiece, comprising: an ion source configured to generate an ion beam; a mass analyzer configured to mass analyze the ion beam; a beam scanner configured to scan the ion beam along a scan plane, therein defining a scanned ion beam, wherein the beam scanner is further configured to scan the ion beam at a first frequency and a second frequency, wherein the first frequency is greater than the second frequency; an end station configured to receive the scanned ion beam at a workpiece plane associated with the workpiece when the beam scanner scans the ion beam at the second frequency; a beam profiling apparatus configured to translate through the scanned ion beam along the scan plane when the ion beam is scanned at the first frequency, wherein the beam profiling apparatus is further configured to measure 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action dated July 7, 2017 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed January 19, 2018 ("Appeal Br."), the Examiner's Answer dated March 7, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed May 7, 2018 ("Reply Br."). 2 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 one or more properties of the scanned ion beam concurrent with the translation; and a controller configured [to] determine a profile of the scanned ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the second frequency based, at least in part, on the one or more properties of the scanned ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the first frequency. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). To better illustrate the elements of the claimed system, Figure 1 from the Drawings filed December 22, 2015, is reproduced below. FIG. 1 3 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 Figure 1 illustrates an exemplary ion implantation system. Spec. 8:25-27. Figure 1 illustrates, for example, the relative locations of ion beam 112, ion beam scanning mechanism 122 (which could be an electrostatic or electromagnetic scanner), workpiece 120, and beam profiling apparatus 128 (which could be a Faraday cup 136). Id. at 8:25-11: 1. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims on appeal: Glavish Farley Olson et al. ("O Ison") Murrell et al. ("Murrell") us 5,132,544 US 6,297,510 Bl US 2002/0134948 Al US 2005/0191409 Al REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us on appeal: July 21, 1992 Oct. 2, 2001 Sept. 26, 2002 Sept. 1, 2005 Rejection 1. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14--16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Olson. Ans. 2. Rejection 2. Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Olson in view of Farley. Id. at 7. Rejection 3. Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Olson in view of Glavish. Id. at 8. Rejection 4. Claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Olson in view of Murrell. Id. at 9. 4 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections."). Appellant presents separate arguments with respect to three groups of claims: (i) claims 1, 9, and 16 (Appeal Br. 5-14), (ii) claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 (Appeal Br. 14--15), and (iii) claim 7 (Appeal Br. 15). Appellant does not present substantively separate arguments with respect to the Examiner's second, third, and fourth rejections (applying to claims 6, 13, and 17). Id. at 16. Also, while Appellant emphasizes recitations of claims 9 and 16, Appellant does not make any substantively distinct arguments with respect to those claims. Rather, Appellant argues claims 9 and 16 in a group with claim 1. We therefore, consistent with the provisions of 3 7 C.F .R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013), limit our discussion to claim 1, claims 3, 4, 14, and 15, and claim 7. All other claims on appeal stand or fall with claim 1. Claim 1. The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Olson. Ans. 2. The Examiner finds, for example, that Olson teaches an ion source, a mass analyzer for analyzing an ion beam, a beam scanner configured to scan the beam at a first and second frequency, an end station configured to receive the scanned ion beam at the workpiece plane, a beam profiling apparatus (Faraday beam profiler 90), and a controller configured to determine a profile of a scanned ion beam when scanned at a second frequency based, at least in part, on the one or more 5 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 properties of the scanned ion beam when the beam is scanned at the first frequency. Id. at 2-3 ( citing Olson). The Examiner finds that Olson does not explicitly teach that the first frequency is greater than the second frequency. Id. at 3. The Examiner, however, determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the second frequency could be adjusted to lower than the first frequency "when the initial speed is too fast to produce a desired ion implementation profile." Id. Appellant's primary argument is that Olson does not teach or suggest scanning the ion beam at a first frequency and a second frequency. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant argues that Olson instead merely teaches an initial scan speed and subsequent scan speed correction. Id. The Examiner, in contrast, finds that Olson changing speed in this context is equivalent to changing scanning frequency. Ans. 9-10. The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's position. We begin by assessing what "frequency" means in the context of claim 1. Appellant's Specification explains that a dose uniformity measurement is typically made with a traveling slit faraday cup. Spec. 3: 17- 18. Around 300 different spatial points must be integrated over several profiles. Id. at 3 :20-21. The Specification explains that low frequency measurements (for example, measurements at 1 Hz ( one cycle per second)) would take 300 seconds to measure 300 points. Id. at 3:21-26. The Specification further explains, in the context of prior art processes, that the timing of the Faraday cup measurements directly relate to the frequency the ion beam is scanned during implementation. Id. at 2: 10-13 ("[T]he Faraday cup is typically translated or scanned through the ion beam while the ion beam is electrostatically scanned at the same frequency as utilized during 6 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 implementation into a workpiece."). In view of this context and in view of the recitations of claim 1, claim 1 's "frequency" recitation refers to the frequency of the scanner. As explained by the Specification in the context of known art, the frequency of the scanner, in tum, corresponds to the frequency of Faraday cup profile measurements. Spec. 2:6-15. With this understanding of "frequency" in mind, we tum to Olson's teachings. Appellant does not dispute that the Olson apparatus, like the apparatus of claim 1, includes a scanner and a profile apparatus (a Faraday cup). Ans. 2-3; Olson ,r,r 23, 26, and Fig. 1. Olson describes its process for adjusting "scan speed" to ultimately obtain a corrected beam profile in some detail. Olson ,r,r 37--42. In particular, Olson explains that an initial scan speed is used which may "correspond[] to a linear ramp voltage waveform." Id. ,r 39. The beam profiler 90 then measures "values" (plural) to provide a scanned beam profile. Id. If the scanned beam profile does not meet a desired uniformity specification, a scan speed correction is determined. Id. ,r,r 40--41. The scan speed correction is used to calculate a corrected scan speed and ultimately obtain a corrected beam profile. Id. ,r,r 41--42. Based on the preponderance of the evidence before us, we find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that both Olson's scanning and Olson's profiling measuring processes require repetition. See Olson ,r,r 23 (referring to "scan voltage waveform"), 39 (indicating that the initial speed corresponds to a waveform and indicating that the profiler must measure multiple values), Fig. 4 (illustrating as So(x) an initial scanned beam profile). Olson's teachings in this regard are consistent with the Specification's teachings that, in prior art methodologies, multiple Faraday cup profile measurements are required and that such 7 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 measurements are "typically ... at the same frequency as utilized during implementation into a workpiece." Spec. 2:6-15. Because Olson teaches measurement and scan repetition, increasing the speed of these actions (i.e., decreasing the amount of time needed for one cycle) necessarily increases the frequency ( cycles per second) because one is, mathematically, the inverse of the other. Ans. 9-10. Appellant argues that speed and frequency are not the same because if speeds may be variable for a process while frequency remains constant. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant's examples, however, both illustrate an average speed of 4 (Scan A having a constant speed of 4; Scan B having a speed of 5 half of the time and a speed of 3 half of the time). Olson, however, teaches speed correction without indicating that it is concerned with average speed (or, equivalently, average frequency) remaining constant. Ans. 10. Rather, Olson is best understood as teaching that speed is adjusted however necessary to reach a desired scanned beam profile. Olson ,r 41--42. If average speed of a repetitive action changes, frequency necessarily changes as well. Ans. 9-10. Accordingly, Appellant's argument that Olson does not teach a first and second frequency is unpersuasive. Appellant also argues that Olson does not teach or suggest "a controller configured to determine a profile of the scanned ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the second frequency based, at least in part, on the one or more properties of the scanned ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the first frequency." Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). This argument is unpersuasive because the Olson system includes "controller 94 [which] includes a general purpose computer that is programmed for controlling the setup and operation of the implanter." Olson ,r 27; Ans. 3. 8 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 Part of controlling the system involves using the profiler 90 to measure the corrected beam profile. Olson ,r 42. The corrected beam profile, in tum, is generated at a corrected scan speed (i.e., equivalent to a second frequency) which was corrected by assessing the initial scanned beam profile. Id. ,r,r 40-42. The controller is thus configured to, when the ion beam is scanned at the second speed (i.e., second frequency), determine a profile, and that profile is based on adjustments made due to imperfections in the initial scanned beam profile made at the initial speed (i.e., first frequency). Ans. 10. Appellant also argues that Olson teaches scan speed correction based on an unscanned beam. Appeal Br. 8-9. This argument is similarly unpersuasive. Appellant emphasizes that Claim 1 recites, for example, "[a] beam profiling apparatus configured to translate through the scanned ion beam." Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Olson, however, likewise teaches that its Olson beam profiler 90 is downstream of the beam scanner 20. Olson Fig. 1, 26:1--4; see also Ans. 2-3. Olson thus teaches profiling the scanned beam. Olson ,r 40 ("[A] determination is made as to whether the initial scanned beam profile So(x) meets a uniformity specification."). Moreover, Olson's corrected profile is determined by the corrected speed (corresponding to second frequency) which is based, in part, on the initial speed (corresponding to a first frequency). Ans. 10. The initial speed, in the parlance of claim 1, is "one ... propert[y] of the scanned ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the first frequency." Id. at 5. Appellant further argues that the Examiner erred in determining that Olson's teachings regarding speed adjustment necessarily correspond to frequency as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9-14. These arguments are 9 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 unpersuasive for the reasons explained above. We again emphasize that a reasonable reading of Olson by a person skilled in the art is that, for any one ion beam measurement, one speed is utilized repeatedly. Under this circumstance, speed and frequency are mathematically inseparable. Ans. 10-11. Because Appellant's arguments regarding the independent claims do not identify reversible error, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, and 16-20. Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15. Appellant argues claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 separately. Appeal Br. 14--15. Claim 3 recites "[t]he ion implantation system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency is at least twice the second frequency." Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Claim 4 recites "[t]he ion implantation system of claim 1, wherein the first frequency is at least one order of magnitude greater than the second frequency." Id. Claims 14 and 15 are similar but depend from method claim 9. Id. at 20. In particular, Appellant argues that Olson does not teach or provide motivation for doubling or providing a ten-fold change in frequency. Appeal Br. 14--15. Appellant argues that Olson instead appears to teach minor changes in speed as shown in Olson Figure 4. The Examiner's obviousness determination is based on a routine optimization rationale. The Examiner explains: "one of ordinary skill in the art could adjust the scan correction so that it is any desired value for achieving a desired profile. This is a matter of routine optimization of the beam profile by adjusting the scanning speed with no unexpected result." Ans. 11. 10 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 On this record, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently established that a person of skill in the art would have contemplated making the relatively extreme adjustments to speed recited by claims 3, 4, 14, and 15. Reply Br. 6-7. Rather, Olson is silent as to the degree to which speed would be adjusted (id.), and the record is unclear as to whether or not a person of skill in the art would have contemplated the relatively large speed adjustments recited by these claims within Olson's context. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 14, and 15. Claim 7. Appellant also argues claim 7 separately. Appeal Br. 15. Claim 7 recites "[ t ]he ion implementation system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to tune the ion beam based on the one or more properties of the ion beam that are measured at the first frequency and a desired one or more properties of the ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the second frequency." Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). In particular, Appellant argues that Olson's correcting the speed of the scanner does not constitute tuning of the ion beam. Id. In response, the Examiner states that "changing the ion beam scan speed constitutes tuning the ion beam based on properties of the ion beam at the first frequency (i.e., the beam profile) and a desired one or more properties of the ion beam when the ion beam is scanned at the second frequency (i.e., the desired beam profile."). Ans. 11. The preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's position. The Specification indicates that the ion beam can be tuned "via a control of one or more of the ion source, the mass analyzer, and the beam scanner." Spec. 7: 1-3 (emphasis omitted). We therefore agree with the Examiner that 11 Appeal2018-005543 Application 14/978,120 "changing the ion beam scan speed constitutes tuning the ion beam." Ans. 11; compare to Reply Br. 7 (arguing that Olson fails to teach any sort of tuning of the ion beam). Also, as explained above with regard to claim 1, Olson teaches adjusting the speed of the beam scanner based on the scanner speed ( corresponding to frequency) at the first speed ( corresponding to the first frequency). Adjustments are made via use of a "desired profile correction" if the initial scanned beam profile does not meet "a uniformity specification." Olson ,r,r 40-41. The tuning (adjustment to beam scanner speed which also, mathematically, amounts to an adjustment to frequency) thus occurs based on the first speed but also based on failure to meet a desired profile. Accordingly, Appellant's argument regarding claim 7 fails to identify reversible error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 7. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-13, and 16-20. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 4, 14, and 15. 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-IN-PART 12 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation