Nissin Ion Equipment Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 18, 2021

2020004279 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

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. 15/795,586 10/27/2017 Sami K. Hahto NIS-004C1 1055 42532 7590 03/18/2021 PROSKAUER ROSE LLP ONE INTERNATIONAL PLACE BOSTON, MA 02110 EXAMINER LOGIE, MICHAEL J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2881 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2021 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): DocketingPatentBoston@proskauer.com oandrews@proskauer.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMI K. HAHTO and GEORGE SACCO Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 Technology Center 2800 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3 and 6–21. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Nissin Ion Equipment Co. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an ion source. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations italicized: 1. An ion implanter comprising: an ion source including: a gas source for supplying a gas; an ionization chamber defining a longitudinal axis extending therethrough and including an exit aperture along a side wall of the ionization chamber, the ionization chamber adapted to form a plasma from the gas, wherein the plasma generates a plurality of ions; and two or more extraction electrodes at the exit aperture of the ionization chamber for extracting the plurality of ions from the ionization chamber in the form of an ion beam, at least one of the extraction electrodes comprising a set of discrete rods forming a plurality of slits in the at least one extraction electrode from which the ion beam is extracted as multiple beam segments, the plurality of slits are configured to enable at least one of increasing a current of the ion beam or controlling an angle of extraction of the ion beam from the ionization chamber, wherein each rod in the set of discrete rods extends along an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the ionization chamber; and an analyzer magnet having a curved chamber with a bottom wall, a top wall, and multiple side walls defining a curved path between a first end and a second end of the analyzer magnet chamber, each of the bottom, top and side walls at least partially surrounded by magnetic coils to bend the beam segments along the curved path and deflect the beam segments in a dispersive plane, the side walls intersect the dispersive plane, wherein each of the plurality of slits is elongated to extend over substantially a length of an opening of each of the two or more corresponding extraction electrodes and the length being (i) substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the ionization chamber, (ii) perpendicular to the dispersive plane of the analyzer magnet, and (iii) longer than a width of the opening that is perpendicular to the length and parallel to the dispersive plane, such that the beam segments are deflected in the dispersive plane of the analyzer magnet, the dispersive plane being substantially parallel to the width of the opening; and wherein the two or more extraction electrodes include a plasma electrode and a second extraction electrode, a first cross section of each rod Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 3 in the set of discrete rods for the plasma electrode is situated at a rotated angle that is different from the angle at which the a second cross section of each rod in a set of discrete rods for the second extraction electrode is situated, the first and second cross sections having the same shape. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Burgin US 5,920,076 July 6, 1999 Smick US 6,331,713 B1 Dec. 18, 2001 Aitken US 2002/0043621 A1 Apr. 18, 2002 Chen US 6,403,967 B1 June 11, 2002 Lee US 2006/0152164 A1 July 13, 2006 Glayish US 2009/0206270 A1 Aug. 20, 2009 Aitken ’087 GB 2 332 087 A June 9, 1999 Wang CN 103681191 A Mar. 26, 2014 Yutaka Inouchi et al. (“Inouchi-2”) “Increase of Boron Ion Beam Current Extracted from a Multi-Cusp Ion Source in an Ion Doping System with Mass Separation,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1066, 316 Nov. 5, 2008 S. Cherekdjian et al. “Nissin Ion Doping System - H2+ Implantation for Silicon Layer Exfoliation” Ion Implantation Technology, 1321, 392 Jan. 11, 2011 Yutaka Inouchi et al. (“Inouchi-1”) “Multi-cusp ion source for Gen 5.5. doping system,” AIP Conference Proceedings 1496, 328 Nov. 7, 2012 Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 4 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi-1, Inouchi-2, Cherekdjian, Chen, and Aiken. Final Act. 7. Claims 1, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Aitken, Chen, and Lee. Final Act. 13. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, and Aitken ’087. Final Act. 21. Claims 7–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, and Burgin. Final Act. 22. Claims 13–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, and Glayish. Final Act. 24. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Glayish, and Smick. Final Act. 27. Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 21 103 Inouchi-1, Inouchi-2, Cherekdjian, Chen, Aiken 1, 12, 21 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee 2, 3 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Aitken ’087 7–11 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Burgin 13–18 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Glayish 19, 20 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Glayish, Smick Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 5 OPINION Appellant’s invention is for an ion implanter that includes an ion source. Spec., Abstract. Figure 4a of Appellant’s Specification is reproduced below. Figure 4a of Appellant’s Specification illustrates that a first cross section of each rod in the set of discrete rods for the plasma electrode is situated at a rotated angle that is different from the angle at which the a second cross section of each rod in a set of discrete rods for the second extraction electrode is situated, and the first and second cross sections have the same shape. Appeal Br. 5; Spec., Fig. 4A, ¶¶ 42, 43. Inouchi-1 The Examiner finds that Inouchi-1 teaches the disputed element of “a first cross section of each rod in the set of discrete rods for the plasma electrode is situated at a rotated angle that is different from the angle at which the a second cross section of each rod in a set of discrete rods for the Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 6 second extraction electrode is situated,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3, 4. The Examiner concludes that “[s]ince the rods [of Inouchi-1] are cylindrical, it does not matter which rotated angle upon which they are placed within grooves because the same field effects will result regardless of rotational position due to symmetry.” Id. at 4, 5. The Examiner concludes “more likely than not” the rods are “arbitrarily placed and thus at a different rotated angle as required by claim 1.” Id. at 5. We agree with Appellant, however, that on this record, Inouchi-1 does not teach or suggest the disputed claim element because if both the plasma electrode and the second electrode are cylindrical and have round cross sections, there would be no difference in the angle at which the rods are situated, rendering the claimed limitation meaningless. See Appeal Br. 8, 9. As Appellant explains, in the “claimed invention, the rotated angle arrangement yields benefits that cannot be realized if the plasma electrode is not situated at a rotated angle relative to the other electrode (e.g., if both electrodes have round cross sections).” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 43). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Inouchi-1, Inouchi-2, Cherekdjian, Chen, and Aiken. Lee The Examiner also rejects independent claim 1, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Aitken, Chen, and Lee. Final Act. 13. The Examiner finds that the electrode members 21b and 22b in Lee teach the claimed electrodes a “rotated angle” because they are rotated 180 degrees. Ans. 6 (citing Lee, Fig. 5). Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 7 First, we agree with Appellant that Lee does not state that the electrodes are rotated 180 degrees. Moreover, in this case, the Examiner has applied the broadest possible interpretation of “rotated angle,” and not the broadest reasonable interpretation, based on Appellant’s claims, Drawings, and Specification. See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “the Board cannot construe the claims so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim construction principles . . .” and that giving claim terms “a strained breadth in the face of the otherwise different description in the specification [is] unreasonable” (internal quotation marks omitted)); TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“While the broadest reasonable interpretation standard is broad, it does not give the Board an unfettered license to interpret the words in a claim without regard for the full claim language and the written description.”). The broadest reasonable interpretation differs from the broadest possible interpretation. Smith, 871 F.3d at 1383; see also MPEP § 2111 (9th Ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020) (“The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings.”). The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is “an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’” Smith, 871 F.3d at 1382–83 (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 8 In this light, we agree with Appellant’s contentions (see Appeal Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 8–10) that on this record, Lee fails to teach or suggest “a first cross section of each rod in the set of discrete rods for the plasma electrode is situated at a rotated angle that is different from the angle at which the a second cross section of each rod in a set of discrete rods for the second extraction electrode is situated,” as recited in claim 1. We conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art, looking at the cited portions of Lee, would not consider the electrodes 21 and 22 to teach the claimed discrete rods for the plasma electrode. Rather, Lee appears to teach that the bars are matched with each other, without any rotation. Reply Br. 10; Lee Fig. 5. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and the claims which depend thereupon. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claim 1, or dependent claims 2, 3, and 7–21. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. Appeal 2020-004279 Application 15/795,586 9 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 21 103 Inouchi-1, Inouchi- 2, Cherekdjian, Chen, Aiken 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 21 1, 12, 21 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee 1, 12, 21 2, 3 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Aitken ’087 2, 3 7–11 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Burgin 7–11 13–18 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Glayish 13–18 19, 20 103 Wang, Aitken, Chen, Lee, Glayish, Smick 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–3, 6–21 REVERSED