Ex Parte Winterhalter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 4, 2014

11934901 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARKUS WINTERHALTER and EKKEHARD MANN ____________ Appeal 2012-007260 Application 11/934,901 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before CHARLES F. WARREN, TERRY J. OWENS, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007260 Application 11/934,901 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1 finally rejecting claims 1-25.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The invention relates to a method for supplying a plasma process with HF power and an HF power generator drive system which “enable a flexible supply of power to different electrodes of a plasma chamber.” (Spec.3 2:12- 13.) The method and system are designed to counteract the wave-like structures produced in the plasma which hamper homogeneous plasma processing. (Cf. id. at 1:16-19.) For reference, claims 1 and 15 are reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief: 1. A method for supplying a plasma process with HF power, the method comprising: providing at least two HF power generators, generating at least one drive signal having a user selectable frequency, generating at least one pulse signal, and based on the at least one drive signal and the at least one pulse signal, generating a pulsed HF power signal by each of the at least two HF power generators. 15. HF power generator drive system, comprising: at least three signal generators configured to generate drive and pulse signals, wherein the at least three signal generators include at least one drive-signal generator configured to generate at least one drive signal having a user selectable frequency, and at least one pulse-signal generator configured to generate a pulse signal. 1 Final Office Action mailed Jun. 10, 2011. 2 Appeal Brief filed Dec. 16, 2011 (“App. Br.”). 3 Specification filed Nov. 5, 2007. Appeal 2012-007260 Application 11/934,901 3 The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection (Ans.4 4- 17): 1. claims 1-9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koshimizu (US 6,214,162 B1, issued Apr. 10, 2001) in view of Gerrish (US 2003/0046013 A1, published Mar. 6, 2003); 2. claims 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koshimizu and Gerrish, further in view of Keane (US 5,565,737, issued Oct. 15, 1996); and 3. claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Koshimizu and Gerrish, further in view of Thomas, III et al. (US 5,057,185, issued Oct. 15, 1991). Appellants’ arguments in support of patentability of appealed claims 1-25 are directed to limitations common to independent claims 1, 2, and 15. See generally, App. Br. 5-11. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner reversibly erred in finding the applied prior art discloses or suggests “at least one drive signal having a user selectable frequency” (claims 1, 2, and 15). The Examiner finds Koshimizu discloses the invention as claimed in independent claims 1, 2, and 15, with the exception of an explicit disclosure that the drive signal has a user selectable frequency. (Ans. 4-7 and 10.) The Examiner finds Gerrish discloses a plasma system wherein “the user interface 28 provides an input signal to the controller 26 which is configured to control the RF generator 12 for providing a drive signal 14 to drive the plasma chamber 20.” (Id. at 16.) The Examiner relies on Gerrish paragraph 0038 in finding Gerrish’s drive signal 14 has a user selectable frequency as claimed. (Id.) Gerrish paragraph 0038 reads, in relevant part: “unlike 4 Examiner’s Answer mailed Feb. 2, 2012. Appeal 2012-007260 Application 11/934,901 4 conventional, diode based systems, the arrangement of [sic] permits harmonic analysis and permits plasma power and impedance measurements at user-selected frequencies” (emphasis added). Appellants have persuasively argued the Examiner has not provided sufficient facts or reasons to support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using Gerrish’s probe arrangement, which “permits plasma power measurements at user-selected frequencies,” to select frequency of a drive signal as recited in the appealed claims. (Reply Br.5 3; see also, App. Br. 7-10.) Nor has the Examiner explained adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a probe arrangement as taught by Gerrish in Koshimizu’s device. (See, e.g., Ans. 7-8 (“It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the plasma system of Koshimizu with an user interface for selecting frequencies of the driving signals as taught by Gerrish for the purpose of providing a reliable and accurate plasma process since this configuration for the stated purpose would have been deemed obvious to a person skilled in the art.”).) Because Appellants have persuasively argued the Examiner’s fact finding and reasoning is insufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-25 is: REVERSED cdc 5 Reply Brief filed Apr. 2, 2012.