ENTEGRIS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2020002421 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 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.
14/912,380 02/16/2016 Ying Tang 201301156/US 6659
144070 7590 03/02/2021
Entegris, Inc.
129 Concord Road
Billerica, MA 01821
EXAMINER
GHEYAS, SYED I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2812
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 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 YING TANG, JOSEPH D. SWEENEY, TIANNIU CHEN,
JAMES J. MAYER, RICHARD S. RAY, OLEG BYL,
SHARAD N. YEDAVE, and ROBERT KAIM
Appeal 2020-002421
Application 14/912,380
Technology Center 2800
Before ADRIENE LEPIANE. HANLON, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LILAN REN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, 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 63–69. See Non-Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer 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 2020-002421
Application 14/912,380

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are generally directed to silicon implantation in substrates
and silicon precursor compositions comprising silicon tetrafluoride and
hydrogen. (Spec. ¶¶ 8–9.) Claim 63 is representative of the subject matter on
appeal and is reproduced below:2
63. A gas mixture for ion implantation of silicon and/or silicon
ions, consisting of silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen, wherein
the amount of hydrogen in the gas mixture is between 0.01 % to
30% by volume, based on total volume of silicon tetrafluoride
and hydrogen.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Kaim US 2012/0142174 A1 June 7, 2012
Sinha US 2014/0061501 A1 Mar. 6, 2014

REJECTION
Claims 63–69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Kaim in view of Sinha. (Non-Final Act. 3.)

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long

2 The claims on appeal appear in the supplemental Appeal Brief submitted
September 6, 2019.
Appeal 2020-002421
Application 14/912,380

3
been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error
in the examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential)).
After review of the respective positions Appellant and the Examiner
provide, we determine that Appellant has identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We limit our discussion to independent claim 63. Our analysis also
applies to independent claim 67.
The Examiner finds Kaim discloses a silicon tetrafluoride and
hydrogen gas mixture for ion implantation of silicon and/or silicon ions. The
Examiner finds Kaim does not disclose the amount of hydrogen in the gas
mixture is between 0.01% to 30% by volume based on the total volume of
silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen, as recited by independent claim 63.
(Non-Final Act. 3). Addressing this difference, the Examiner finds Sinha
—directed to methods of silicon ion implantation— teaches the beneficial
effects of optimizing the amount of hydrogen diluent. (Non-Final Act. 3).
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to adapt a gas mixture wherein the
amount of hydrogen in the gas mixture is between 0.01 % to 30% by
volume, based on total volume of silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen,
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges
involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
(CCPA 1955).

(Non-Final Act. 4).

Appeal 2020-002421
Application 14/912,380

4
The Examiner further states:
The only reason Sinha et al. has been used by the Examiner, is to
present its teachings regarding the role of hydrogen in the
aforementioned process which proves, albeit implicitly, that it a result
effective variable. This teaching, is relevant to the process of Kaim et
al. too. Too much hydrogen in the gas mixture will lower the desired
beam current and too low a hydrogen (or absence of it) in the gas
mixture will increase the deposit on the filament lowering the
performance of the system. This teaching can be derived from a
careful reading of the specification of Sinha et al. especially paragraph
0050 and Table 1. It is worth mentioning that even from the teachings
of Kaim et al. alone, it could be understood that the amount of
hydrogen in a mixture consisting of silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen
is a result effective variable. Clearly, the amount of hydrogen in the
mixture cannot be zero, also it cannot be 100%. The person of
ordinary skill have to find out how much hydrogen in the mixture is
most advantageous which will enhance dopant implantation without
decreasing ion source life.

(Non-Final Act. 10 emphasis omitted).

Appellant argues Sinha teaches the combination of Si2H6 and SiF4
provides the source of silicon ion available for implantation into a substrate.
(Appeal Br. 6–7; Sinha ¶ 31.) Appellant argues Sinha fails to recognize
hydrogen gas in a mixture consisting of silicon tetrafluoride gas and
hydrogen as a result effective variable. (Appeal Br. 6.)
The Examiner’s determination that Sinha recognizes the beneficial
effects of optimizing the amount of hydrogen diluent is unsupported on the
present record. It is well established that optimization of a prior art range
flows from the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what
is already generally known. Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348,
1366–68 (Fed. Cir. 2007). But it is equally well established that when the
Appeal 2020-002421
Application 14/912,380

5
parameter optimized was not recognized to be a result-effective variable,
optimization would not have been obvious. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620
(CCPA 1977). The Examiner has not identified evidence in the present
record that establishes Sinha teaches the importance of controlling the
amount of hydrogen. The Examiner cites to Sinha ¶ 50 as supportive
evidence. (Non-Final Act. 10). However, the discussion appearing in Sinha ¶
50 is directed to a comparative embodiment and does not indicate the
importance of controlling the amount of hydrogen in the diluent gas mixture.
Sinha’s inventive embodiment, as evidenced by inventive Examples 1 and 2,
is directed to silicon ions generated from the ionization of SiF4 and a second
silicon-containing species.
The Examiner also has not explained adequately or directed us to any
portion of Kaim that establishes the amount of hydrogen in a mixture
consisting of silicon tetrafluoride and hydrogen is a result effective variable.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 63–69 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
combination of Kaim and Sinha.

CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 63–69 is REVERSED.
Appeal 2020-002421
Application 14/912,380

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
63–69 103 Kaim, Sinha 63–69

REVERSED