Entegris, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2021

2020004406 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 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.
15/593,486 05/12/2017 Barry Lewis Chambers 201600101 US 9902
144034 7590 07/13/2021
ENTEGRIS, INC./OC
129 Concord Road, Building 2
Billerica, MA 01821
EXAMINER
LUCK, SEAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2881
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2021 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):
IP_Paralegal@Entegris.com
IP_Prosecution@Entegris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BARRY LEWIS CHAMBERS, BIING-TSAIR TIEN,
JOSEPH D. SWEENEY, YING TANG, OLEG BYL, STEVEN E. BISHOP,
and SHARAD N. YEDAVE
Appeal 2020-004406
Application 15/593,486
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
TIMM, 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, 12, 13, 16, 21, 26, and 27. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Entegris, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-004406
Application 15/593,486
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a nitrogen ion implantation system (see,
e.g., claim 1), a gas supply package for supplying a nitrogen ion
implantation composition to the implantation system (see, e.g., claim 12), a
method of supplying gas for nitrogen ion implantation (see, e.g., claim 13),
and a nitrogen ion implantation composition for combating glitching in an
ion implantation system when nitrogen ion implantation is followed by
another ion implantation operation susceptible to glitching (see, e.g., claim
21). The composition is at issue in this appeal. Compare Appeal Br. 5–9,
with Final Act. 4–10, and Ans. 3–8. The composition contains a nitrogen
(N2) dopant gas and a glitching-suppressing gas comprising NF3. The
glitching-suppressing gas is present in an amount ranging from 2 vol. % to
15 vol. %. Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
composition:
21. A nitrogen ion implantation composition for
combating glitching in an ion implantation system when
nitrogen ion implantation is followed by another ion
implantation operation susceptible to glitching, the nitrogen ion
implantation composition comprising:
nitrogen (N2) dopant gas; and
a glitching-suppressing gas comprising NF3, wherein the
glitching-suppressing gas is present in the nitrogen ion
implantation composition in an amount ranging from 2 vol. %
to 15 vol. % and wherein the composition reduces glitching in
an ion implantation system when nitrogen ion implantation is
followed by another ion implantation operation susceptible to
glitching, the nitrogen ion implantation composition suppresses
glitching.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-004406
Application 15/593,486
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Olander US 2013/0251913 A1 Sept. 26, 2013
Lubicki US 2014/0021373 A1 Jan. 23, 2014
Sinha US 2015/0248992 A1 Sept. 3, 2015

REJECTION
Claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 21, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Olander and Lubicki and Sinha. Final
Act. 3.
OPINION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons presented by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action and Answer. In doing so, we adopt the
Examiner’s well-reasoned, well-articulated response to arguments presented
in the Answer. We can hardly improve upon what the Examiner has stated,
but we will add the following for emphasis.
Appellant does not argue any claim apart from the others. Appeal
Br. 5–9. Because Appellant’s arguments focus on the compositional aspects
of the claims, we select claim 21 as representative to resolve the issue on
appeal.
Claim 21 is directed to a composition containing a mixture of nitrogen
(N2) dopant gas and from 2 to 15 vol. % of a glitching-suppressing gas
comprising NF3. Thus, claim 21 encompasses a mixture of N2 and 2 to15
vol. % NF3. The question before us is whether Appellant has identified a
reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that Olander, Lubicki, and
Sinha together would have suggested forming an ion implantation gas
Appeal 2020-004406
Application 15/593,486
4
containing N2 and NF3 and arrived at concentrations of NF3 within the range
of the claim through routine experimentation.
Appellant has not identified such an error.
Olander, Lubicki, and Sinha, like Appellant, are concerned with ion
implantation using a dopant gas. Olander ¶ 2; Lubicki ¶ 2; Sinha ¶¶ 2–3.
Olander suggests mixing the dopant gas with a co-flow agent to effect
cleaning of the ion implantation system and exemplifies using xenon
difluoride (XeF2) as the cleaning agent, but earlier mentions that NF3 is also
a cleaning agent. Olander ¶ 38. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
Olander would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art mixing NF3,
as a co-flow agent for cleaning, with a dopant gas. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3–4.
Further, the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding of a suggestion
within the art to use nitrogen (N2) as a dopant gas. Final Act. 4. Even though
Olander does not list nitrogen in its dopant gas examples, Olander states that
the apparatus “can be adapted for use with any suitable dopant source,”
Olander ¶ 38, and Lubicki evinces that nitrogen was a known dopant gas for
use in ion implantation. Lubicki ¶ 22. As pointed out by the Examiner, “it
has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another
to obtain predictable results is obvious.” Final Act. 4, citing KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Sinha evinces that cleaning reduces glitching. Sinha ¶ 65.
As the combination of Olander and Lubicki suggest, it would have
been obvious to co-flow NF3 with N2 to obtain a cleaning function within the
N2 dopant gas. Sinha indicates that the cleaning action of NF3 will reduce
glitching. Thus, the prior art suggests the general conditions of claim 21
such that the concentration of NF3 becomes a mere matter of routine
experimentation to find the workable or optimal amount. The facts of this
Appeal 2020-004406
Application 15/593,486
5
case fall in line with the well-established legal principle: “where the general
conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re
Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); see also, e.g., E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., 904 F.3d 996, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellant contends that the concentration “cannot be characterized as
routine experimentation” because “[a] particular parameter must first be
recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a
recognized result” Appeal Br. 6, citing In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA
1977). But the exception of Antonie is a narrow one. DuPont, 904 F.3d at
1009. The recognition of the effect of a parameter on a result maybe implicit
and it is well-established that the concentration of a compound within a
mixture affects the properties of the mixture. See Aller, 220 F.2d at 456
(“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in
concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification.”); In re
Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding the Board’s
finding that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a
matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art where the reference failed
to provide any numerical quantities). A preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s finding that NF3 was known to affect the cleaning
property of a dopant source gas and it would have been routine to determine
the concentrations required to achieve that property, which the Examiner has
established reduces glitching.
Because the prior art supports the Examiner’s finding that the
concentration would have been arrived at through routine experimentation to
find the workable or optimized amount, the burden shifted to Appellant to
show that their claimed range is critical for producing an unexpected result.
Appeal 2020-004406
Application 15/593,486
6
In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. Appellant has not relied on such evidence on
this appeal record. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us of reversible error
in the Examiner’s rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 12, 13, 16, 21, 26, and 27
is AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 12, 13,
16, 21, 26,
27
103 Olander, Lubicki,
Sinha
1, 12, 13,
16, 21, 26,
27

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED