Ex Parte Berman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2006

10668021 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not w
for publication and is
ritten
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. BERMAN and JAN FURE
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before GROSS, LEVY, and NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEVY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-9, 19 and 20, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.

We REVERSE.
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to improving the
uniformity and other process characteristics of chemical
mechanical polishing of integrated circuits (specification,
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 2
page 2). A sheet of pressure sensitive material is placed
between the conditioner and the polishing pad, and the polishing
pad is lowered onto the sheet of pressure sensitive material. A
desired degree of pressure is applied between the conditioner and
the polishing pad, thereby creating an impression in the sheet of
pressure sensitive material. The sheet of pressure sensitive
material is inspected to determine the uniformity of the
pressure applied between the conditioner and the polishing pad
(specification, page 5).
Claim 1 is representative of the invention, and is
reproduced as follows:
1. A method for inspecting a uniformity of pressure applied
between a conditioner and a polishing pad on a chemical
mechanical polisher, the method comprising the steps of:
placing a sheet of measure sensitive material between the
conditioner and the polishing pad,
lowering the conditioner onto the sheet of pressure sensitive
material,
applying a desired degree of pressure between the conditioner
and the polishing pad, thereby creating an impression in
the sheet of pressure sensitive material,
lifting the conditioner from the sheet of pressure sensitive
material, and inspecting the sheet of pressure sensitive
material to determine the uniformity of the pressure applied
between the conditioner and the polishing pad.

The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Lin 6,477,447 Nov. 5, 2002
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 3
Claims 1-9, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
(a) or (e) as being anticipated by Lin.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (mailed August 29,
2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed July 17, 2005) and reply
brief (filed October 31, 2005) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(eff. Sept. 13, 2004).

OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner as support for the rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
appellants' arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 4
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we make the
determinations which follow. Turning to the rejection of claims
1-9, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) as being
anticipated by Lin, we begin with claim 1. We note as background
that to anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose
every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d
1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As stated in In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) (quoting Hansgirg v.
Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665, 667 (CCPA 1939))
(internal citations omitted):
Inherency, however, may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact
that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however,
the disclosure is sufficient to show that the
natural result flowing from the operation as
taught would result in the performance of the
questioned function, it seems to be well settled
that the disclosure should be regarded as
sufficient.

Appellants argue (brief, page 4) to the effect that Lin is
directed to a wafer polishing subsystem, not a conditioner
subsystem of a chemical mechanical polisher. It is argued (id.)
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 5
that Lin depicts only wafer polishing components and does not
depict any conditioner components. Appellants point to various
portions of Lim to support their position that Lim provides
pressure sensing of the wafer surface, and assert that Lin
describes pressure sensing in regard to a wafer, and not a
conditioner. Appellants dispute (id.) the examiner’s assertion
that a conditioner falls under the definition of “pressure
related components” because Lin defines pressure related
components as detecting pressure distribution on a wafer surface.
Appellants add (brief, page 5) that there is no way that Lin
could detect pressure distribution on a wafer surface by
measuring the pressure on a conditioner, as claimed.
Turning to the Berman reference, relied upon by the examiner
to support the examiner’s finding of inherency in Lin, appellants
argue (id.) that it is very evident from figure 1 of Berman that
the wafer polishing subsystem and the conditioner subsystem of a
chemical mechanical polisher are separate systems.
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that Lin’s
disclosure (col. 3, lines 37-42) supports the examiner’s position
that Lin does not limit his inventive method to only the
described embodiment, but to any “pressure related component”
that would be part of a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP)
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 6
device. The examiner asserts (answer, pages 3 and 4) that a
conditioner is inherently a CMP device that is used to treat the
polishing pad, and that the conditioner must be a “pressure
related component.” As evidence of inherency, the examiner turns
to Berman for a disclosure that the CMP process is controlled by
a process called conditioning, and that during conditioning, the
conditioner is brought into contact with the surface of the pad.
The examiner points to Lin (col. 3, lines 20-33) for a disclosure
that “it is desirable to engage the conditioner 12 against the
surface of the pad 16 with a known and repeatable force, and also
with a force that is known and preferably uniform across the
conditioner 12.”
From our review of Lin, we agree with appellants that the
invention is directed to detecting pressure distribution on a
wafer surface by employing pressure sensitive films on located on
various pressure components such as a wafer carrier, polishing
pad, and mechanical arm members of a CMP machine (col. 1, lines
12-16). As shown in figure 3B, pressure sensitive film PSF2 is
located between wafer 30 and polishing pad 34. Lin further
discloses (col. 3, lines 37-42) that “in addition, the pressure
components applied in the embodiment of the present invention
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 7
refer to, but not limited to, mechanical CMP pressure related
components including a wafer carrier, a polishing pad, and
mechanical are members of a CMP machine.” However, we find from
this passage, and our review of the entire Lin reference, that
the broad reference to the pressure components were not limited
to the disclosed elements is not a disclosure of a conditioner,
even though it may have suggested a conditioner to an artisan.
Turning to Berman, we agree with the examiner (answer, pages
4 and 5) that Berman discloses having the conditioner engage the
surface of the pad with a known and repeatable force. However,
the fact that conditioning is a known CMP process does not
necessarily mean that conditioning is inherent in Lim. Inherency
cannot be established by possibilities or probabilities but must
necessarily flow from the disclosure of the reference. In this
instance, we find that conditioning is not inherent in Lin. In
any event, even if we found that conditioning was inherent in Lin
as a pressure related component, as advanced by the examiner, the
language of claim 1 would still not be met. Claim 1 requires
that the pressure sensitive material is located between the
conditioner and the polishing pad. In Lin, the pressure
sensitive sheet is located between the wafer and the polishing
pad. Thus, even if Lin inherently disclosed a conditioner, we
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 8
would have to resort to speculation to find that the pressure
sensitive material would be moved from a location between the
wafer and the polishing pad to a position between the polishing
pad and the conditioner. The examiner may not resort to
speculation or unfounded assumptions to supply deficiencies in
establishing a factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967).
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of anticipation of the invention
set forth in claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) or (e) as being anticipated by Lin is
reversed, along with claims 2-9 which depend therefrom. As
independent claim 19 also requires that the pressure sensitive
material is placed between the conditioner and the polishing pad,
the rejection of claim 19, and claim 20 which depends therefrom,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (e) is reversed.

Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 9

CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims
1-9, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a) or (e) is reversed.
REVERSED

ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ROBERT E. NAPPI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-0629
Application No. 10/668,021

Παγε 10
LSI LOGIC CORPORATION
1621 BARBER LANE MS: D-106
MILPITAS, CA 95035

SL/jrg

Comment [jvn1]: Type address